X 


B    M    713   DMA 


fr 


H 


<^ 


\.v' 


^ 


TJ^xma 


^^"j 


I 


BIBLIOORAPHY 


OF  THE  — 


bacon-^hake^peare; 

CONTROVERSY, 


NOTES    AND    EXTRACTS. 


By  W;  H.  WYMAN. 


'Shikspur!    Shikspur  !    Who  wrote  it  ?" 

Miss  Kitty,  in  High  Life  Belozv  Stairs. 


CINCINNATI: 
PETER  G.  THOMSON, 

1884. 


COPYRIGHTED, 

1884, 

By  W.  H.  WYMAN. 


-'^^PREFACE.- 


In  July,  1882,  the  compiler  of  this  work  issued  a  small 
privately-printed  Bibliography  of  the  Bacon- Shakespeare  Literature, 
including  all  the  titles  then  ascertained— 63  in  number.  Since 
that  time,  additional  titles  and  interesting  material  have  so 
accumulated  that  he  has  thought  proper  to  present  this  vol- 
ume— the  work,  or  amusement  of  leisure  evenings — believing 
that  the  discussion  has  reached  a  point  that  entitles  it  to  as 
complete  a  Bibliography  as  can  b«  made.  While  personally 
entertaining  no  doubts  as  to  Shakespeare's  authorship,  he 
believes  that  the  discussion  has  its  compensating  features  in 
inciting  a  study  of  the  Shakespearian  dramas,  and  of  the  works 
as  well  of  the  dramatists  and  philosophers — in  fact,  the  literary 
history— of  the  Elizabethan  age.  It  is,  perhaps,  due  to  the 
various  theorists  that  the  ground-work  of  their  opinions  be 
known,  and  it  is  due  no  less  to  the  memory  of  William  Shake- 
speare that  these  adverse  theories,  and  the  arguments  in  an- 
swer, shall  be  so  presented  as  to  enable  any  one,  who  wishes 
to  investigate  the  question,  to  form  an  intelligent  opinion  for 
himself. 

As  to  the  Bibliography,  so  far  as  titles  are  concerned,  no 
pains  have  been  spared  to  make  it  complete.  It  is  believed 
to  contain    a   Hst  of  all   the   books,  pamphlets,  and   magazine 

(3) 


269092 


articles  on  the  question,  as  well  as  a  large  proportion  of  the 
reviews,  the  more  important  newspaper  articles,  etc.  Of  the 
latter,  a  few  may  be  included  that  are  unimportant — as  it  has 
been  difficult  to  decide  just  where  to  draw  the  line — but  the 
intention  has  been  to  include  nothing,  except  some  collateral 
matters  of  special  interest,  that  is  not  of  some  use  in  the 
formation  of  an  opinion. 

While  the  endeavor  has  been  to  embody  in  some  part  of 
it,  in  a  general  way,  all  the  main  points  of  the  discussion, 
this  work  does  not  pretend  to  be  a  complete  reflex  of  all  the 
arguments  or  the  evidence  adduced.  It  is  simply  a  list  of 
the  titles,  to  which  are  added  such  brief  memoranda  as  will 
give  the  main  facts  in  regard  to  this  literature,  and  something 
as  to  its  authors.  By  the  notes  and  extracts,  an  effort  has 
been  made  to  relieve  the  tediousness  of  a  dry  Bibliography. 
Where  extracts  are  given,  such  have  usually  been  chosen  as 
were  thought  to  embody  some  interesting  feature,  or  a  hint 
of  the  argument— these  to  be  distributed  so  evenly  as  to  leave 
no  doubts  of  a  bibliographical  impartiality.  In  short,  the  aim 
has  been  to  point  out  to  those  who  desire  this  information 
just  where  it  may  be  found.  In  common  with  one  of  the 
writers,  who  has  adopted  an  expression  of  Lord  Bacon's :  "  We 
have  only  taken  upon  us  to  ring  a  bell,  to  call  other  wits 
together,  which  is  the  meanest  office," 

And  as  to  the  extracts,  an  apology  is  doubtless  due  to 
the  writers.  It  may  well  be  appaUing  to  the  author  of  a  book 
or  an  article,  bristling  with  telling  arguments  and  eloquent 
passages,  to  find  here  a  quotation  wrenched  from  its  appro- 
priate context,  embodying  only  a  single  idea,  and  that,  per- 
haps, the  one  he  values  least — or,  possibly,  none  at  all.  The 
compiler  admits  all  this  in  advance,  with  the  single  remark 
that  he  has  made  no  attempt — it  being  simply  impossible 
within  the  limits  of  this  work — to  do  any  sort  of  justice  to  the 
various  productions,  many  of  them  learned,  ingenious,  and 
cultured. 

The  compilation  and  arrangement  has  not  been  without 
its  difficulties.  With  such  a  varied  mass  of  material — many 
of  the  articles  being  without  any  proper  titles,  it  has  been  im- 
possible to  follow  an  exact    Bibliographical   formula.     Though 


—  5  — 

crude  in  this  respect,  it  is  hoped  ihat  it  has  been  so  arranged 
as  to  be  intelligible.  The  titles  have  been  placed  chronolog- 
ically as  best  calculated  to  show  the  history  and  progress  of 
the  discussion,  thus  rendering  it  necessary  to  divide  a  few, 
such  as  Notes  and  Queries,  which  would  more  properly  come 
together.  As  it  has  been  found  impracticable  to  give  a  full 
explanation  of  many  of  the  titles,  the  general  tenor  of  each 
has  been  thus  indicated  : 

For  Shakespeare, Pro-Sh. 

Against  Shakespeare,      ....  Anti-Sh. 
Unclassified, Unc. 

the  last  including  all  articles  which  for  any  reason  can  not 
be  classed  as  For  or  Against. 

A  recapitulation  of  some  of  the  main  features  of  the  Bib- 
liography may  be  interesting: 

Of  the  255  titles,  there  are.  For  Shakespeare,  117;  Against 
Shakespeare,  73  ;  Unclassified,  65.  In  addition  to  the  above, 
there  are  about  100  sub-titles,  of  more  or  less  importance, 
represented  by  a,  b,  c,  etc. 

As  to  nationality,  the  origin  of  the  articles  (titles)  may 
be  classed  as  follows:  American,  161;  English,  69;  Austra- 
lian, 10;  Scotch,  4;  Canadian,  3;  German,  2;  French,  2; 
Italy,  Holland,  Ireland,   and  India,  i  each. 

Taken  chronologically,  there  appeared  in  1848,  i;  1852, 
i;  1853,  i;  1856,  9;  1857,  It;  i860,  2;  1862,  i;  1863,  2; 
1865,  i;  1866,  12;  1867,  8;  1869,  2;  1870,  2;  1874,  28; 
1875,  11;  1876,  2;  1877,  7;  1878,  9;  1879,  10;  1880,  9; 
1881,  27;  1882,  30;  1883,  61;  1884,  to  date,  8.  This  can 
not,  of  course,  be  relied  upon  as  giving  more  than  an  approx- 
imate idea  of  the  relative  progress  of  the  controversy,  as  the 
titling  of  articles— especially  those  of  minor  importance  — has 
been  much  more  practicable  in  the  later  years. 

There  has  been  ample  opportunity  for  an  examination 
of  these  works.  Of  the  255  titles,  copies  of  249  are  in  the 
hbrary  of  the  compiler.  The  tides  lacking  are  48,  92,  109, 
117;  also,    the  articles  under  151   and  161  in  part. 

In  explanation  of  the  different  ways  of  spelling  Shake- 
speare. Shakespearian,  etc.,  in  these  pages,  it  is  proper  to  say 


—  6  — 

that  the  intention  has  been  to  follow,  in  all  titles  and  extracts, 
the  methods  adopted  by  the  various  writers. 

The  compiler  tenders  his  acknowledgments  to  many 
friends  and  correspondents  for  information  and  assistance,  in 
all  cases  courteously  furnished.  An  additional  favor  will  be 
conferred  by  further  information  as  to  any  errors  or  omitted 
titles. 

It  will  be  seen  by  a  reference  to  the  notes,  that  not  less 
than  five  new  works  are  foreshadowed,  some  of  which  will 
be  published.  Evidently  the  discussion  is  not  ended.  The 
subject  is  one  that  appeals  too  strongly  to  the  iconoclastic 
spirit  of  the  age  for  that.  It  is  likely  to  afford  as  endless  a 
theme  as  the  authorship  of  Junius,  or  the  personality  of  Homer. 
If  the  authorship  of  the  Shakespearian  dramas  is  not  fiow 
settled,  in  that  sense  it  never  will  be  settled,  for  it  is  not,  in 
its  very  nature,  susceptible  of  such  proof  as  will  satisfy  every- 
body. And  though  the  world  may  always  hold  to  its  faith 
in  William  Shakespeare,  none  the  less  will  there  always  be 
doubters. 

W.  H.  W. 
Walnut  Hills, 
Cincinnati,  April  loth,  1884. 


BACON-SHAKESPEARE 

CONTROVERSY. 


^BIBLIOGRAPHY 


I  The  Ancient  Lethe.  In  The  Romance  of  Yacht- 
ing;  Voyage  the  First.  By  Joseph  C,  Hart, 
author  of  "Miriam  Coffin,"  etc.  New  York: 
Harper   &    Brothers,  1848;    i2mo.  pp.  332.      (See 

pages  207-243). 

Anti-Sh, 

The  first  known  publication  questioning  the  right  of  Shake- 
speare to  the  authorship  of  the  Shakespearian  dramas. 

CoL.  Hart's  article  seems  to  have  been  overlooked,  and  not 
brought  to  the  notice  of  those  who  were  interested  in  the 
question,  until  it  was  used  by  the  compiler  of  this  work  as 
the  first  title  in  The  Bibliography  of  the  Bacon- Shakespeare  Lit- 
erature, of  which  this  is  an  extension.  Up  to  that  time,  the 
article  in  Cliambers^s  Edinburgh  Journal  (see  next  title),  seems 
to  have  been  accepted  by  all  the  authorities  as  the  first  men- 
tion. TJie  Romance  of  Yaciiting  is  a  gossipy  account  of  a  voy- 
age to  Spain,  in  a  merchant  ship,  in  which  are  interwoven 
discussions  of  various  topics  in  a  free  and  easy  style.  This 
chapter  is  supposed  to  be  written  on  the  banks  of  the  Guada- 
lete — the   ancient   Lethe.     Hence  the  title. 


—  lO — 

"Alas,  Shakespeare!     Lethe    is   upon  thee!     But  if  it  drown  thee, 
it  will  give  up  and  work  the  resurrection  of  better  men  and  more  'worthy. 
Thou  hast  had  thy  century;  they  are  about  having  theirs." 
•S  ■;•;■  ■:!:-  *  »  *  •:;:•  *  «  * 

"  He  was  not  the  mate  of  the  literary  characters  of  his  day,  and  none 
knew  it  better  than  himself.  It  is  a  fraud  upon  the  world  to  thrust  his 
surreptitious  fame  upon  us.  He  had  none  that  was  worthy  of  being 
transmitted.  The  enquiry  will  be,  who  were  the  able  literary  men  who  wrote 
the  dramas  imputed  to  him  ?  The  plays  themselves,  or  rather  a  small 
portion  of  them,  will  live  as  long  as  English  literature  is  regarded  as 
worth  pursuit.  The  authorship  of  the  plays  is  no  otherwise  material  to 
us,  than  as  a  matter  of  curiosity,  and  to  enable  us  to  render  exact 
justice;  but  they  should  not  be  assigned  to  Shakespeare  alone,  if  at  all." 

The  author  contrasts  Shakespeare  with  the  other  Eliza- 
bethan writers.  He  argues  that  the  facts  known  in  the  Hfe 
of  Shakespeare,  so  far  as  they  are  known,  are  incompatible 
with  the  authorship,  and  takes  up  the  plays  in  review,  claim- 
ing that  he  had  very  little  part  in  them.  He  suggests  no 
other  author. 

(Col.  Hart  was  a  lawyer,  journalist,  and  yachtsman — residing 
in,  and  well-known  in  New  York,  especially  from  1832  to  1850 
— the  friend  and  associate  of  Willis,  Poe,  Park  Benjamin,  Col. 
Porter,  of  The  Spirit,  etc.  He  was  a  Colonel  in  the  National 
Guard.  During  his  later  years  he  was  U.  S.  Consul  to  Santa 
Cruz  de  Teneriffe,  and  died  there  in  1855,  in  his  57th  year. 
A  private  letter  concerning  him  says:  "He  was  quite  proud 
of  writing  that  chapter  as  to  Shakespeare,  and  declared  that 
in  time  his  views  must  become  accepted.") 

2     Who  Wrote  Shakespeare  ?     An  article  in  Cham- 
ber &'s  Edinhtirgh   Jotirnal,  August  7,  1852. 

Anti-Sh. 
The  author  of  this  is  unknown.     The  article  was  for  a  long 
time  accepted  as  "the  first  mention."    It  is  moderate  in  tone, 
contrasting   the    common-place    life    of   Shakespeare   with   his 
works,  and  suggests  that  he  may  have  "kept  a  poet." 

May  not  William  Shakespeare — the  cautious,  calculating  man,  care- 
less of  fame,  and  intent  only  on  money-making — have  found,  in  some 
furtherest  garret,  overlooking  the  silent  highway  of  the  Thames,  some 
pale,  wasted  student,  with  a  brow  as  ample  and  lofty  as  his  own,  who 
had  written  the  Wars  of  the  Roses,  and  who,  with  eyes  of  genius  gleaming 


—  II  — 

through  despair,  was  about,  like  Chatterton,  to  spend  his  last  copper 
coin  upon  some  cheap  and  speedy  mode  of  death  ?  What  was  to  hinder 
William  Shakespeare  from  reading,  appreciating,  and  purchasing  these 
dramas,  and  thereafter  keeping  his  poet  as  Mrs.    Packwood  did?" 

"  Well,  reader,  how  like  you  our  hypothesis?  We  confess  we  do  not 
like  it  ourselves;  but  we  humbly  think  it  is,  at  least,  as  plausible  as 
most  of  what  is  contained  in  the  many  bulky  volumes  written  to  con- 
nect the  man,  William  Shakespeare,  with  the  poet  of  Hamlet.  We 
repeat,  there  is  nothing  recorded  in  his  every-day  life  that  connects  the 
two,  except  the  simple  fact  of  his  selling  the  poems  and  realizing  the 
proceeds,  and  their  being  afterwards  published  with  his  name  attached; 
and  the  statements  of  Ben  Jonson,  which,  however,  are  quite  compat- 
ible with    his  being   in  the  secret." 

The  writer  opens  his  article  with  an  allusion  to  Miss  Kitty's 
"Shikspur!  Who  wrote  it?"  in  High  Life  Below  Stairs.  To 
explain  this  allusion:  This  farce,  with  the  query  so  frequently 
alluded  to  in  this  controversy,  was  written  by  the  Rev.  James 
Townley,  and  first  acted  in  Drury  Lane  in  1759.  The  dram- 
atis personce  in  the  following  dialogue  are  servants,  who  hold 
high  carnival  in  the  absence  of  the  owners  of  the  mansion, 
all,  except  Kitty,  assuming  the  titles  of  their  respective  mas- 
ters and  mistresses  : 

"Lady  Bab —     *     *     *     I  never  read   but  one  book. 
Kitty — What  is  it  your  ladyship  is  so  fond  of? 
Lady  Bab — Shikspur.     Did  you  never  read  Shikspur? 
Sir  Harry — I  never  heard  of  it. 

Kitty — Shikspur!  Shikspur!  Who  wrote  it?  No,  I  never  read 
Shikspur. 

Lady  Bab — Then  you  have  an  immense  pleasure  to  come. 

Duke — Shikspur !     Who  wrote   it  ? 

Sir  Harry — Who  wrote  it?     Why,  Ben  Jonson. 

Duke — Oh,  I  remember,  it  was  KoUy  Kibber. 

Kitty — Well,  then,  I'll  read  it  over  one  afternoon  or  other." 

3     Notes  and  Queries.     London.     First  Series. 
a — From  Theta,  Vol.  viii,  p.  438,  November  5,  1853. 
b — Answer  by  C,  Vol.  x,  p.  106,  August  15,  1854. 

Unc. 

Unimportant,  except  as  the  commencement  of  the  series 
of  articles  running  through  Notes  and  Queries,  which  will  be 
found  hereafter  arranged  in  chronological  order. 


12   

4  William  Shakespeare  and  his  Plays.  An  In- 
quiry Concerning  Them.  By  Delia  Bacon.  In 
PiUnani's  Monthly,  January,  1856,  pages  1-19. 

Anti-Sh. 

Miss  Bacon  was  the  first  writer  who  connected  Lord  Bacon 
with  the  authorship  of  the  Shakespearian  dramas,  and  in  this 
article  she  first  suggests  it — not  directly,  but  rather  by  infer- 
ence. It  was  written  during  her  stay  in  England  (at  St.  Al- 
bans), and  was  the  real  commencement  of  the  "  Bacon-Shake- 
speare"  controversy.  As  this  was  before  her  mind  became  so 
completely  clouded  by  her  intense  thought  on  the  subject, 
it  is  much  clearer  in  its  style  than  her  subsequent  book.  In 
it  she  draws  the  contrast  between  the  known  facts  in  the  life 
of  Shakespeare,  and  the  magnificence  of  the  dramas  that  bear 
his  name. 

"Shall  this  crowning  literary  product  of  that  great  epoch,  wherein 
these  new  ages  have  their  beginning,  vividly  arranged  in  its  choicest 
refinements,  flashing  everywhere  on  the  surface  with  its  costliest  wit, 
crowded  everywhere  with  its  subtlest  scholasticisms,  betraying,  on  every 
page,  its  broadest,  freshest  range  of  experience,  its  most  varied  culture, 
its  profoundest  insight,  its  boldest  grasp  of  comprehension — shall  this 
crowning  result  of  so  many  preceding  ages  of  growth  and  culture,  with 
its  essential,  and  now  probable  connection  with  the  new  scientific  move- 
ment of  the  time  from  which  it  issues,  be  able  to  conceal  from  us, 
much  longer,  its  history? — shall  we  be  able  to  accept  in  explanation  of 
it,  much  longer,   the  story  of  the  Stratford  poacher?" 

(Delia  Bacon  was  born  in  Tallmadge,  Ohio,  February  2, 
1811.  She  was  the  daughter  of  Rev.  David  Bacon,  one  of 
the  early  Western  missionaries,  and  sister  of  the  late  Rev.  Dr. 
Leonard  Bacon.  She  was  educated  at  Miss  Catherine  E. 
Beecher's  school,  in  Hartford,  and  is  described  as  a  woman 
of  rare  intellect  and  attainments.  Her  profession  was  that  of  a 
teacher  and  lecturer — the  first  woman,  Mrs.  Farrar  says,  whom 
she  had  ever  known  to  speak  in  public.  At  this  time,  she 
resided  in  Boston.  Having  conceived  the  idea  of  the  Baconian 
authorship,  she  became  a  monomaniac  on  the  subject.  Visit- 
ing England,  in  1853,  in  search  of  proofs  for  her  theory,  she 
spent  five  years  there,  first  at  St.  Albans,  where  she  supposed 


—  13  — 

Bacon  to  have  written  the  plays;  then  at  London,  wlicre  she 
wrote  The  Philosophy  of  Shakespeare  Unfolded;  and  subsequently 
at  Stratford-on-Avon.  Here,  after  the  publication  and  non- 
success  of  her  book,  she  lost  her  reason  wholly  and  entirely. 
She  was  returned  to  her  friends  in  Hartford,  in  April,  1858, 
and  died  there  September  2,  1859.] 

5  Review  of   Delia  Bacon's  Article  in  PtUnams 

Monthly.  In  the  Athen^uin,  London,  July  26, 
1856,  p.   108. 

Pro-Sh. 

"The  process  by  which  Shakespeare  is  reduced  to  nothing  is  cer- 
tainly startling.  Take  away  all  the  evidences  of  the  poet's  supreme 
intellect — refuse  him  the  witness  of  his  works — and  it  is,  of  course, 
very  easy  to  say  the  poor  player  was  unequal  to  his  mighty  task.  But 
the  same  process  could  reduce  Bacon  from  a  great  law-giver  in  the 
empire  of  thought,  to  a  corrupt  lawyer  and  base  flatterer  in  the  Court 
of  King  James,  Take  the  facts  which  stand  apart  from  his  intellectual 
action — erect  the  idea  of  man  upon  them — and  it  will  be  as  easy  to 
raise  a  theory  that  not  Bacon  but  Shakespeare  wrote  the  Essays  and 
Novum   Organum." 

6  Was  Lord  Bacon  the  Author  of  Shakespeare's 

Plays?  A  letter  to  Lord  Ellesmere.  By  Wil- 
liam Henry  Smith.  Painphlet.  Printed  for  pri- 
vate circulation.  London :  September,  1856.  (This 
was  reproduced  in  LitteW s  Living  Age,  November, 
1856.     4  pages  in  Littell). 

Anti-Sh. 

This  was  addressed  to  the  Earl  of  Ellesmere,  as  the  late 
President  of  the  Shakespeare  Society.  It  takes  strong  grounds 
in  favor  of  the  Baconian  authorship. 

A  question  of  precedence  as  to  the  Baconian  advocacy  arose 
between  Mr.  Smith  and  Miss  Bacon's  friends.  Hawthorne  in 
his  preface  to  Miss  Bacon's  book  animadverted  upon  Mr.  Smith 
for  "taking  to  himself  this  lady's  theory,"  resulting  in  the 
correspondence  published  in  Smith's  book.  In  his  letter 
Mr.  Smith  claimed  that  he  had  never  seen  Miss  Bacon's  Put- 
nattis  Afonthly  article   until   after   his   pamphlet  was   published, 


—  14  — 

and  also  that  he  had  held  these  opinions  for  twenty  years 
previously.  But  as  Miss  Bacon's  article  was  published  eight 
months  previous  to  his  pamphlet,  and  reviewed  in  the  A/Ae- 
naum  in  the  meantime,  his  want  of  knowledge  was  certainly 
very  singular,  and  the  precedence  must  be  awarded  to  her. 

(Mr.  William  Henry  Smith,  who  still  resides  in  London, 
was  the  first  English  Baconian.  He  not  only  wrote,  but 
lectured  on  the  subject.  During  the  past  fifteen  years,  we 
find  nothing  from  his  pen,  but  from  recent  advices  we  infer 
that  his  interest  in  the  question  is  unabated,  and  that  he  may 
yet  be  heard  from.) 

7  Was  Lord  Bacon  the  Author  of  Shakespeare's 

Plays  ? 

a — In  the  Literary  Gazette^  London,  Sept.  6,  1856. 

b — In  the  same,   Oct.  18,  1856. 

Pro-Sh. 

Both  articles  are  notices  of  Smith's  Ellesmere  pamphlet — 
the  latter  a  comprehensive  review.  Towards  its  close,  the 
writer  recapitulates  the  contemporary  evidence,  and  adds  : 

"Now,  before  Mr.  Smith  proceeds  to  take  possession  of  the  plays  in 
the  name  of  Lord  Bacon,  he  should  show  his  right  to  dispossess  the  oc- 
cupying tenant.  This  can  be  done  only  by  overturning  the  mass  of 
evidence,  upon  the  faith  of  which  the  whole  world  has  hitherto  believed 
Shakespeare,  if  we  may  so  express  it,  to  be  the  author  of  his  own  works. 
When  Mr.  Smith  shall  have  done  this,  and  proved  that  Greene,  Chettle, 
Ben  Jonson,  Beaumont  and  the  rest,  and  the  traditions,  to  boot,  as 
thick  as  leaves  in  Vallambrosa,  are  one  and  all  unworthy  of  credit,  he 
shall  then  be  in  a  position  to  assert  Lord  Bacon's  claim — but  not  one 
moment  sooner." 

8  Review  of  Smith's  Letter  to  Lord  Ellesmere. 

In  the  AtJienceum,  London,  Sept,  13,  1856,  p.  1133. 

^Pro-Sh. 

"Of  course — as  our  readers  have  seen — we  reject  altogether  the 
theory  of  an  extra  authorship  of  Shakespeare's  plays  ;  and  on  any  idle 
day  of  the  year,  should  we  ever  find  one,  we  will  undertake  to  prove, 
just  as  plausibly  as  Mr.  Smith  here  proves  the  authorship  of  Lear  and 
Hatnlit  to  belong  to  Bacon,  that  Shakespeare  composed  the  Jnstanration 
and   wrote  the  Essays." 


—  15  — 

9  Notes  and  Queries.      London.      Second  Series. 

a — From  A.  Hopper,  ii,  267,  Oct.  4,  1856. 

b — Review  of  Ellesmere  letter,  n,  320,  Oct.  18,  1856. 

c — From  Vox,  11,  369,  Nov.  8,  1856. 

d — From  W.  H.  S.  [Smith]  11,  503,  Dec.  27,  1856. 

e — From  R.  Slocomb,  11,  504,  Dec.  27,  1856. 

Unc. 

10  Shakespeare  and  Lord  Bacon.  In  the  Illustrated 
London  News^  October  25,  1856.     i  column. 

Unc. 

An  account  of  a  lecture  by  Wm.  Henry  Smith,  at  tlie 
Beethoven  Rooms,   Harley  street,  London. 

11  On  the  Art  of  Cavilling.  "All  is  humbug." 
In  Blackwood'' s  Magazine^  Edinburgh,  November, 
1856.      15  pages. 

Pro-Sh. 
An  answer  to  Smith's  Ellesmere  letter. 

"  It  proves  an  unlimited  power  of  credulity  among  the  class  [the 
cavillers]  to  which  its  writer  belongs,  and  throws  some  light  upon  that 
extraordinary  mental  process  by  which  men  of  a  crotchety  turn  of  mind 
can  set  up  pure  unreason  in  the  face  of  plain  truth ;  but  it  proves 
nothing  whatever  about  Francis  Bacon,  nor  throws  the  smallest  glim- 
mer of  illumination  on  those  mysterious  productions  called  Shakespeare's 
Plays." 

12  Shaicespeare  and  Bacon.      "A  little  chink  may 

let  in  much  light."     Anonymous.      [By  Dr.  C.  M. 

Ingleby.]     In  Illustrated  London   IVews,    Dec.  6, 

1856,  p.  577. 

Pro-Sh. 

In  this  Dr.  Ingleby  summarizes  the  arguments  of  Smith 
in  the  Ellesmere  letter,  and  comprehensively  answers  them. 

13  I  won't  have  Bacon.  A  communication  by  John 
Bull.      In  Illustrated  London  JVews,  January  10, 

1857. 

Pro-Sh. 


—  i6  — 

'•I  won't  have  Bacon.  I  will  have  my  own  cherished  "  Will."  I 
have  borne  a  great  deal,  and  never  changed  my  faith.  I  have  seen 
him  chipped,  mauled,  befribbled,  and  overdone.  I  have  seen  upholsterers 
and  classic  managers  cloud  his  genius  in  fustian  and  explanations.  I 
have  heard  shouts  against  his  anachronisms,  and  anathemas  against  his 
want  of  the  unities  and  his  knowledge  of  Greek  ;  but  never  thought 
an  Englishman  and  a  Smith  would  try  to  prove  that  he  was  a  swindler — 
a  thief — a  jackdaw,  and  died  in  the  odor  of  sanctity,  the  pilferer  of 
Bacon,  *  *  *  *  I  know  the  pestilent  vapor  will  pass  away,  and 
the  steady  glories  of  Will.  Shakespeare  break  forth  again;  but  in  the 
meantime  we  shiver  under  a  passing  cloud." 

14  Bacon  and  Shakespeare.  Letter  from  William 
Henry  Smith,  on  the  Psalms  translated  by  Bacon. 
IntheAl/ieuceum,  London,  January  24,  1857,  p.  122. 

Anli-S/i. 

Mr.  Smith  claims  that  these  translations  show  the  poetic 
faculty  in  Bacon.  "  His  mind  was  so  essentially  poetical,  that 
it  was  as  great  a  constraint  to  him  to  write  prose,  as  to  spare, 
or  pass  by  a  jest." 

15  William    Shakespeare  not   an    Impostor.      By 

an  English  Critic.    [Geo.  H.  Townsend.]    London 

and     New    York:       G.  Routledge    &    Co.,    1857, 

i2mo.  pp.  122. 

Pro-S/i. 

The  especial  purpose  of  this  book  is  to  answer  Smith's 
Ellesmere  letter,  which  the  author  criticises  severely,  but  it 
takes  in  the  question  in  its  fullest  scope.  His  preface  aptly 
describes  it: 

"The  author  has  endeavored  to  collect  within  the  compass  of  a 
small  volume  the  historical  documents  and  the  testimonies  of  the  poet's 
contemporaries,  by  which  the  claim  of  William  Shakespeare  to  the 
authorship  of  the  six-and-thirty  plays,  published  in  the  folio  edition 
of  1623,  is  clearly  established.  His  title  is  confirmed  by  such  a  mass 
of  evidence,  that  many  readers,  who  have  not  investigated  the  matter, 
will  wonder  how  it  could  have  been  called   in  question." 

The  author  gives  a  summary  of  Smith's  argument  (copied 
from  JVoies  and  Queries),  and  answers  it  as  follows: 


—  '7  — 

"He  contends:  i.  That  the  character  of  Shakespeare,  as  sketched 
by  Pope,  is  the  exact  biography  of  Bacon.  2.  That  Bacon  possessed 
dramatic  talent  to  a  high  degree,  and  could,  according  to  his  biogra- 
phers, assume  the  most  different  characters,  and  speak  the  language 
proper  to  each,  with  a  facility  that  was  perfectly  natural.  3.  That  he 
wrote  and  assisted  at  bal-masques,  and  was  an  intimate  friend  of  Lord 
Southampton,  the  alleged  patron  of  Shakespeare.  4.  That  the  first 
folio  of  1623  was  not  published  till  Bacon  had  been  driven  to  private 
life,  and  had  leisure  to  revise  his  literary  works;  and  that  as  he  was 
obliged  to  raise  money  by  almost  any  means,  it  is  at  least  probable  that 
he  did  so  by  writing  plays.  5.  That  Shakespeare  was  a  man  of  busi- 
ness rather  than  poetry,  and  acknowledged  his  poems  and  sonnets,  but 
never  laid  claim  to  the  plays." 

"This  is,  after  all  [says  Mr,  Townsend],  as  good  a  summary  as  can 
be  given  of  the  wretched  arguments  upon  which  Mr.  William  Henry 
Smith  bases  his  new,  preposterous  and  altogether  untenable  theory. 
They  may  be  dismissed  in  a  few  sentences.  i.  Shakespeare's  character 
could  not  possibly  be  the  biography  of  another  man.  2.  Bacon's  ability 
for  dramatic  composition  can  not  be  accepted  as  proof  that  he  wrote 
plays,  to  the  authorship  of  which  he  never  laid  claim,  and  which  were 
attributed  to,  and  acknowledged  by,  one  of  his  contemporaries.  3.  Lord 
Southampton,  the  friend  of  Shakespeare  and  Bacon,  is,  as  we  shall 
see  more  fully  in  another  chapter,  a  witness  against  Mr.  William  Henry 
Smith  and  his  theory.  4.  Bacon's  leisure  and  want  of  funds  will  never 
justify  even  the  suspicion  that  he  wrote  the  plays  of  Shakespeare.  5.  The 
assertion  that  Shakespeare  was  a  man  of  business  rather  than  poetry 
is  directly  at  variance  with  the  truth,  as  any  person  who  has  perused 
the  Venus  and  Adorns,  Lucrece,  and  the  Sonnets,  will  at  once  admit.  It 
is  equally  false  to  assert  that  Shakespeare  did  not  claim  the  authorship 
of  these  dramas." 

Here  is  the  author's  comparison  of  Bacon  and  Shakespeare : 

"No  two  minds  could  be  more  dissimilar  than  those  of  Bacon  and 
Shakespeare ;  they  were  both  monarchs  in  the  realms  of  literature,  but 
they  sat  upon  different  thrones;  theirs  was  not  a  joint  sovereignty;  they 
ruled  over  different  empires.  Shakespeare  possessed  great  natural  genius; 
Bacon's  mind  was  a  store-house  of  learning.  The  one  had  power  to 
create,  the  other  to  mould  all  human  knowledge  to  his  mighty  will, 
Bacon  was  a  dictator  amongst  philosophers  and  schoolmen  ;  Shakespeare. 
a  king  among  poets.  The  one  dived  deep  beneath  the  surface,  and 
brought  up  rich  pearls  of  thought;  the  other  plucked  the  flowers  as  he 
pnssed  along;  received  his  inspiration  direct  from  all-bounteous  Nature, 
and  held  mysterious  communion  with  her." 

(Mr.  Townsend  is  better  known  as  the  author  of  the  Man- 
ual of  Dates  and  Men  of  the   lime.     He  resided    in  London, 


and   died    there    in    1869.       A    series    of    disappointments    so 
affected   his  mind  as  to  lead  him  to  take  his  own  hfe.) 

16  Reviews  of  Townsend's  Shakespeare  Not  an 
Impostor, 

a — In  the  Athen<sum^  London,  February  14,  1857, 

p.  213. 
b — In  the  Literary  Gazette,  London,  Feb.  21.  1857, 

p.   181. 

Pro-Sh. 

"The  book  is  honestly  meant,  but  can  its  writer  conceive  that  any 
such  book  was  needed  ?  If  he  does,  the  fact  is  as  noticeable  as  Mr. 
William   Henry  Smith's  lucubrations." — AthencEUvi. 

17  The  Philosophy  of  the  Plays  of  Shakespeare 
Unfolded.  By  Delia  Bacon.  With  a  Preface 
by  Nathaniel  Hawthorne.  London :  Groom- 
bridge  &  Sons,   1857.    Boston:  Ticknor  &  Fields, 

1857,     8vo.  pp.  582. 

Anti-Sh. 

Miss  Bacon's  book  was  mainly  written  during  her  resi- 
dence in  London.  In  it  she  makes  no  attempt  to  deal  with 
the  historical  side  of  the  question — that  being  reserved  for 
another  volume,  never  published.  She  confines  herself  to  the 
development  of  her  theory  of  a  hidden  under-current  of 
philosophy  in  the  works  of  both  Bacon  and  Shakespeare, 
veiled  in  cipher  and  allegory  for  the  Elizabethan  times,  but 
to  be  read  and  understood  by  a  future  age.  This  is  outlined 
in  Mr.  Hawthorne's  preface : 

"In  the  present  volume,  accordingly,  the  writer  applies  herself  to 
the  demonstration  and  development  of  a  system  of  philosophy,  which 
has  presented  itself  to  her  as  underlying  the  superficial  and  ostensible 
text  of  Shakespeare's  plays.  Traces  of  the  same  philosophy,  too,  she 
conceives  herself  to  have  found  in  the  acknowledged  works  of  Lord 
Bacon,  and  in  the  works  of  other  writers  contemporary  with  him.  All 
agree  in  one  system;  all  the  traces  indicate  a  common  understanding 
and  unity  of  purpose  in  men  among  whom  no  brotherhood  has  hitherto 
been  suspected,  except  as  representatives  of  a  grand  and  brilliant  age, 
w'len  the  human  intellect  made  a  marked  step  in  advance." 


—  19  — 

As  to  the  authorship,  Miss  Bacon  points  to  Lord  Bacon, 
Sir  Walter  Raleigh,  and  possibly  others  of  the  wits  and  dram- 
atists of  the  age.  Her  style  of  writing  is  so  redundant 
that  no  brief  extract  can  be  made,  within  the  limits  of  this 
work,  which  will  give  anything  like  a  clear  statement  of  her 
theories.  In  the  following,  the  theme  is  the  Shakespearian 
dramas  : 

«'  Man,  as  he  is,  booked,  surveyed — surveyed  from  the  continent  of 
nature  put  down  as  he  is  in  her  book  of  kinds,  not  as  he  is  from  his 
own  interior,  isolated  conceptions  only — the  universal  powers  and  causes 
as  they  are  developed  in  him,  in  his  untaught  affections,  in  his  utmost 
sensuous  darkness — the  universal  principle  instanced  where  it  is  most 
buried,  the  cause  in  nature  found — man  as  he  is  in  his  heights  and  in 
his  depths,  '  from  his  lowest  note  to  the  top  of  his  key ' — man  in  his 
possibilities,  in  his  actualities,  in  his  thought,  in  his  speech,  in  his  book 
language,  and  in  his  every  day  words,  in  his  loftiest  lyric  tongue,  in 
his  lowest  pit  of  play-house  degradation,  searched  out,  explained,  inter- 
preted. »  »  *  «  It  is  man's  life,  and  the  culture  of  it,  erected 
into  an  art  or  science,  that  these  books  contain.  In  the  lowness 
of  the  lowest,  and  in  the  aspiration  of  the  noblest,  the  powers 
whose  entire  history  must  make  the  basis  of  a  successful  morality  and 
policy  are  found.  It  is  all  abstracted  or  drawn  into  contemplation, 
•  that  the  precepts  of  cure  and  culture  may  be  more  rightly  con- 
cluded.' '  For  that  which  in  speculative  philosophy  corresponds  to 
the  cause,  in  practical  philosophy  becomes  the  rule.'  " 

<'It  is  not  necessary  to  illustrate  this  criticism  in  this  case,  because 
in  this  case  the  design  looks  through  the  execution  elsewhere.  The 
criticism  of  the  Novum  Organum,  the  criticism  of  the  Advancement  of 
Learning,  and  the  criticism  of  Raleigh's  History  of  the  World,  than 
which  there  is  none  finer,  when  once  you  penetrate  its  crust  of  pro- 
found erudition,  is  here  on  the  surface.  And  the  scholasticism  is  not 
more  obtrusive  here,  the  learned  sock  is  not  more  ostentatiously  paraded, 
than  in  some  critical  places  in  these  performances;  while  the  humor 
that  underlies  the  erudition  issues  from  a  depth  of  learning  not  less 
profound." 

For  a  sketch  of  the  theory  of  the  book,  see  the  extract 
(Title  20)  from  the  National  Review. 

18     Review  of  Delia  Bacon's  Philosophy  of  Shake- 
speare Unfolded.       In    the    AtheticBuni,   London, 

April   II,   1857,  p.  461. 

Pro-Sh. 


20  — 


19 


Review  of  the  Books  of  Delia  Bacon  and  W. 
H.  Smith.     In  the  Literary  Gazette^  London,  May 

9,  1857- 

^  Pro-Sh. 


20    The  Alleged  Non-Existence  of   Shakespeare. 
In  the  National  Review^  London,  July,  1857. 

Pro-Sh. 

A  very  long  and  caustic  review  of  Delia  Bacon's  book 
We  give  the  commencement  of  it,  from  its  value  to  the  reader 
as  an  interpretadon  of  the  book  itself. 

«'  American  philosophy  delights  in  hiding  its  light  under  a  bushel. 
Emerson  is  not  easy  reading;  the  Poughkeepsie  seer  (not  that  we  wish 
to  class  them  together)  is  sometimes  difficult  of  construction ;  but  Delia 
Bacon  is  harder  still.  We  have  met  with  nothing  in  the  range  of 
literature  so  like  the  attempt  to  find  a  needle  in  a  bundle  of  hay,  as 
the  task  of  extracting  a  definite  meaning  from  the  vast  body  of  obscure 
verbiage  and  inconsequential  reasoning  in  which  she  has  folded  up  her 
ideas.  As  far  as  we  can  make  out,  however,  the  following  is  her  theme 
and  the  thread  of  her  argument : 

In  the  days  of  Elizabeth  and  James,  a  conquest  more  complete  and 
more  degrading  than  that  of  the  first  Norman  King  had  overwhelmed 
England.  At  the  same  time,  the  first  fruits  of  the  revival  of  learning 
were  ripening  in  England.  There  was  a  body  of  men  here,  at  the  head 
of  whom  were  Raleigh  and  Lord  Bacon,  of  boundless  penetration, 
wisdom,  and  philanthropy.  The  cause  of  freedorn  and  human  advance- 
ment was  that  to  which  their  whole  souls  and  lives  were  devoted. 
Some  of  them  ventured  an  overt  act  against  the  government,  which 
was  speedily  crushed.  It  was  necessary  to  conceal  the  new  light  which 
it  was  their  mission  to  shed  forth  upon  the  world.  Yet  so  to  hide  it, 
that  while  it  should  not  betray  itself  to  the  jealous  scrutiny  of  a  tyran- 
nical autocracy,  it  yet  should  be  discoverable  to  the  gifted  eye,  and  buried 
only  to  be  disinterred,  in  its  due  time,  by  the  sagacity  of  future  genera- 
tions. We  know  that  in  his  youth  Lord  Bacon  busied  himself  with 
ciphers;  he  speaks  of  word  ciphers  as  well  as  letter  ciphers;  be  sure, 
then,  that  in  ciphers  he  has  hidden  the  learning  he  dared  not  lay  bare 
to  the  face  of  day.  Those  who  search  his  works  with  a  discriminating 
eye,  will  find  abundant  hints  scattered  through  them  that  they  have  an 
esoteric  meaning  subtly  hidden  beneath  their  obvious  expressions.  He 
was  the  master-mind  of  a  'secret  association'  of  men  who  made  it  their 
business  to  perfect  and  transmit  to  posterity  a  '  new  and  all-comprehend- 
ing science  of  life  and  practice.'  It  is  in  the  later  and  more  finished 
works    of    this  school — the   Advancement   of  Learning,    Hamlet,    Lear, 


—  ii  — 

the  Tempest,  and  the  Novum  Organum — that  the  key  to  the  secret 
doctrines  of  which  it  is  the  object  of  Miss  Bacon's  work  to  furnish  the 
interpretation  is  best  found  ;  but  it  lies  also  wrapt  up,  like  the  tree  in 
the  bud,  in  the  earliest  and  most  faulty  plays  of  the  collection." 

21  Bacon  and  Shakespeare.  An  Inquiry  Touching 
Players,  Play-Houses,  and  Play- Writers,  in  the 
days  of  Elizabeth.  By  William  Henry  Smith, 
EsQ^  To  which  is  appended  an  abstract  of  a  MS. 
respecting  Tobie  Matthew.  London :  John  Rus- 
sell Smith,    1857.     i2mo.  pp.    162. 

Anli'-S/i. 

This  is  an  enlargement  and  extension  of  the  letter  to  Lord 
Ellesmere. 

"To  consider  the  probability  of  these  plays  having  been  written 
by  William  Shakespeare,  and  to  attack  the  evidence  by  which  the 
assertion  that  they  were  is   supported,  is  our  present  object." 

"Proof  that  they  were  written  by  some  other  person,  we  do  not  yet 
hope  to  be  able  to  adduce,  but  merely  such  evidence  of  the  probability 
of  this  being  the  case,  as  may  induce  some  active  inquiry  in  the 
direction  indicated." 

A  short  summary  of  Mr.  Smith's  arguments  will  be  found 
under  the  answer  of  Mr.  Townsend  to  the  Ellesmere  letter 
(Title  15).     Mr.  Smith  says  in  his  epitome: 

«  «  s  "Very  little  indeed  is  known  of  the  history  of  Shake- 
speare and  that  in  no  way  connects  him  with  these  plays — that  the 
writer  of  them  must  have  possessed  a  vast  variety  of  talents,  such  as 
have  been  reported  to  have  been  found  in  Francis  Bacon,  and  in  him 
alone;  that  the  wit  and  poetry  are  of  a  kind  that  were  peculiarly 
his— that  William  Shakespeare,  of  Stratford-on-Avon,  connected  himself 
with  a  class  which  had  only  recently  sprung  into  existence,  and  which 
were  held  in  the  utmost  contempt— that  he  was  neither  eminent  as  an 
actor,  nor  as  a  writer,  during  his  life  time,  nor  celebrated  as  such  in 
the  period  immediately  succeeding  his  death  —  that  there  are  some 
remarkable  coincidences  of  expression  in  these  plays  and  in  the  writings 
of  Bacon,  and  that  the  latter  was  ever  careful  to  note  any  thing  like  a 
quotation  *  *  "•■■"  [and,  as  reasons  why  Bacon  did  not  claim  the  plays] 
that  literary  labor  was  not  at  that  time  voluntarily  pursued  for  pecu- 
niary recompense,  and  the  few  that  followed  such  an  occupation  were 
regarded  with  the  utmost  contempt — that  a  play    was  hardly  considered 


22  

a  literary  work,  and  ranked  infinitely  below  a  sonnet,  and  that  learned 
men  would  as  little  have  prided  themselves  upon  writing  one,  as  upon 
writing  a  bon  mot."     *     *     *     *     * 

22  Notice  in  the  AihencBiim,  London,  August  15. 
1857,  of  the  correspondence  between  Hawthorne 
and  William  Henry  Smith,  p.   1036. 

Pro-Sk. 

Mr.  Smith  transmits  a  copy  of  the  correspondence  above 
mentioned,  but  the  Athenmim  declines  to  be  convinced  that 
he  knew  nothing  of  Delia  Bacon's  theory  previous  to  the 
publication  of  his  EUesmere  letter. 

23  Shakespeare  in  Modern  Thought.     In  the  Nortli 

American  Review,  October,   1857.       [By  Rev.  C. 

C.  Shackford.]    24  pages. 

Pro-Sh. 

A  portion  of  the  article  is  devoted  to  a  review  of  Miss 
Bacon's  book. 

"There  is,  on  the  other  hand,  in  Miss  Bacon's  work,  a  spirit  of 
subtile  analysis,  a  deep  moral  insight,  and  a  penetrating  research,  which, 
separated  from  the  monomania  of  her  particular  theory,  enlists  our  ad- 
miration, and  is  adapted  to  throw  much  light  upon  Shakespeare's  genius, 
and  makes  us  feel  that  there  are  in  him  vast  depths  of  thought,  and 
presentations  of  great  human  and  social  laws  of  development,  of  which, 
as  yet,  we  have  scarcely  dreamed.  On  every  page,  nay,  over  almost 
every  paragraph,  we  are  forced  to  exclaim:  'O  matter  and  imperti- 
nency,  mixed  reason  in  madness!'  The  significant  contents  of  the 
political  and  philosophical  status  of  that  age  are  minutely  exhibited. 
The  particular  theory  of  the  book,  and  the  special  pleading  through 
inferences,  hints,  and  analogies  in  thought  and  expression,  to  prove 
that  the  philosophy  and  the  plays  of  the  age  proceeded  literally  from 
the  same  brain  and  the  same  hand,  we  may  put  aside  as  impertinent, 
and  a  merely  fine-spun,  fanciful  speculation,  and  there  will  be  left  a 
valuable  contribution  to  the  real  criticism  of  Shakespeare,  as  embodying 
the  whole  spirit  of  the  Baconian  philosophy,  and  as  the  ripe  flower 
and  consummated  product  of  the  tendencies  and  outstreaming  influences 
of  that  wonderful  period  of  development  for  the  English  genius." 


-  23  — 

24  Harrington:  A  Story  of  True  Love.  [By  Wil- 
liam D.  O'Connor.]  Boston  :  Thayer  &  Eldridge, 
i860,    i2mo.   pp.  558.      (See    Chapter  XII,  pages 

215-221). 

Anti-Sh. 

To  explain  this  unique  title:  Hawthorne,  in  his  Recollec- 
tions of  a  Gifted  Woman  (Title  27),  says  of  Miss  Bacon's  book: 

"I  believe  it  has  been  the  fate  of  this  remarkable  book  never  to 
have  had  more  than  a  single  reader.  But,  since  my  return  to  America, 
a  young  man  of  genius  and  enthusiasm  has  assured  me  that  he  has 
positively  read  the  book  from  beginning  to  end,  and  is  completely 
a  convert  to  its  doctrines.  It  belongs  to  him,  therefore,  and  not 
to  me — whom,  in  almost  the  last  letter  that  I  received  from  her,  she 
declared  unw^orthy  to  meddle  with  her  work — it  belongs  surely  to  this 
one  individual,  who  has  done  her  so  much  justice  as  to  know  what 
she  wrote,  to  place  Miss  Bacon  in  her  due  position  before  the  public 
and    posterity." 

The  "young  man"  referred  to  (in  1863)  is  the  author  of 
this  novel.  The  story  itself  is  of  the  times  of  the  Fugitive 
Slave  Law.  Mr.  O'Connor  introduces  his  own  Baconian 
theories  through  the  dialogue  of  his  title-hero,  Harrington. 
He  also  renders  an  acknowledgment  to  Miss  Bacon  as  their 
source,  in  a  note  at  the  end  of  the  book : 

"The  reader  of  the  twelfth  chapter  of  this  book,  may  already  have 
observed  that  Harrington,  if  he  had  lived,  would  have  been  a  believer 
in  the  theory  regarding  the  origin  and  purpose  of  the  Shakespearian  drama, 
as  developed  in  the  admirable  work  by  Miss  Delia  Bacon,  entitled,  '  The 
Philosophy  of  Shakespeare's  Plays  Unfolded,'  in  which  belief  I  should 
certainly  agree  with  Harrington.  I  wish  it  were  in  my  power  to  do 
even  the  smallest  justice  to  that  mighty  and  eloquent  volume,  whose 
masterly  comprehension  and  insight,  though  they  could  not  save  it 
from  being  trampled  upon  by  the  brutal  bison  of  the  English  press, 
yet  lift  it  to  the  dignity,  whatever  may  be  its  faults,  of  being  the  best 
work  ever  composed  upon  the  Baconian  or  Shakespearian  writings.  It 
has  been  scouted  by  the  critics  as  the  product  of  a  distempered  ideality. 
Perhaps  it  is.  But  there  is  a  prudent  wisdom,  says  Goethe,  and  there 
IS  a  wisdom  that  does  not  remind  us  of  prudence;  and,  in  like  manner, 
I  may  say  that  there  is  a  sane  sense,  and  there  is  a  sense  that  does 
not  remind  us  of  sanity.  At  all  events,  I  am  assured  that  the  candid 
and  ingenuous  reader  Miss  Bacon  wishes  for,  will  find  it  more  to  his 
profit  to  be  insane  with  her  on  the  subject  of  Shakespeare,  than  sane 
with  Dr.  Johnson." 


—  24  — 

(Mr.  O'Connor  resides  in  Washington,  and  is  an  ofificer 
connected  with  the  Treasury  Department.  It  is  understood  that 
he  has  finally  obeyed  the  injunction  Hawthorne  put  upon  him, 
"to  place  Miss  Bacon  in  her  due  position  before  the  public 
and  posterity,"  and  has  prepared  an  article  on  the  subject, 
which  will  soon  be  published.) 

25  Editors  and  Commentators,  in  the  Life  of  Ed- 
mond  Malone,  Editor  of  Shakespeare.  By  Sir 
James  Prior.    London:    Smith,  Elder  &  Co.,  i860. 

Unc. 
Writing  of  a  date  about  1780-90,  Sir   James  Prior  says  of 
the  Shakespearian  discussions  : 

"  Editors  and  commentators  appear  at  every  turn  in  all  societies. 
In  the  club-house  we  meet  three  or  four  of  a  morning;  in  the  park 
see  them  meditating  by  the  Serpentine,  or  under  a  tree  in  Kensington 
Gardens;  no  dinner  table  is  without  one  or  two;  in  the  theatre  you 
view  them  by  the  dozens.  Volume  after  volume  is  poured  out  in  note, 
comment,  conjecture,  new  reading,  statement,  or  mis-statement,  contra- 
diction, or  variation  of  all  kinds.  Reviews,  magazines,  and  newspapers 
report  these  with  as  little  mercy  on  the  reader,  as  to  give  occasional 
emendations  of  their  own.  Some  descant  upon  his  sentiments,  some 
upon  his  extravagancies,  some  upon  his  wonderful  creations,  or  flights 
of  imagination,  some  upon  his  language,  or  phraseology.  Several  sup- 
pose that  he  wrote  more  plays  than  he  acknowledged  ;  others,  that  he 
fathered  more  than  he  had  written,  while  the  last  opinions  are  still 
more  original  and  extraordinary — that  his  name  is  akin  to  a  myth,  and 
that  he  wrote  no  plays  at  all!  Every  new  aspirant  in  this  struggle  for 
distinction  aims  to  push  his  predecessor  from  his  stool." 

26  Notes  and  Queries.  London  :  Third  Series. 
From  T.  J.  Buckton,  11,  502,  Dec.  27,  1862. 

Unc. 

27  Recollections  of  a  Gifted  Woman.  By  Na- 
thaniel Hawthorne.  In  the  Atlantic  Monthly^ 
January,  1863.  (See  pages  43-58.)  Reprinted 
also  with  Hawthorne's  Works  in   Our  Old  Home. 

Unc. 

This  is  interesting  as  a  record  of  Miss  Bacon's  experiences 
in   England  while  writing   her   book,  and   especially  so   as   to 


—  25  — 

her  efforts  to  have  the  tomb  of  Shakespeare  opened,  believing 
that  she  would  find  within  it  manuscript  proofs  of  her  theory. 
Hawthorne  himself,  though  he  wrote  the  preface  to  her  book, 
was  not  a  believer.  "Being  conscious  within  myself  of  a 
sturdy  unbelief,"  he  says. 

"I  had  heard,  long  ago,  that  she  believed  that  the  material  evi- 
dences of  her  dogma  as  to  the  authorship,  together  with  the  key  of 
the  new  philosophy,  would  be  found  buried  in  Shakespeare's  grave. 
Recently,  as  I  understood  her,  this  notion  had  been  somewhat  modified, 
and  was  now  accurately  defined  and  fully  developed  in  her  mind,  with 
a  result  of  perfect  certainty.  In  Lord  Bacon's  letters,  on  which  she 
laid  her  finger  as  slie  spoke,  she  had  discovered  the  key  and  clue  to 
the  whole  mystery.  There  were  definite  and  minute  instructions  how 
to  find  a  will  and  other  documents  relating  to  the  conclave  of  Eliza- 
bethan philosophers,  which  were  concealed  (when  and  by  whom  she 
did  not  inform  me)  in  a  hollow  space  in  the  under  surface  of  Shake- 
speare's grave-stone.  Thus  the  terrible  prohibition  to  remove  the  stone 
was  accounted  for.  The  directions,  she  intimated,  went  completely  and 
precisely  to  the  point,  obviating  all  difficulties  in  the  way  of  coming  at 
the  treasures ;  and  even,  if  I  remember  right,  were  so  contrived  as  to 
ward  off  any  troublesome  consequences  likely  to  ensue  from  the  inter- 
ference of  the  parish-officers.  All  that  Miss  Bacon  now  remained  in 
England  for — indeed,  the  object  for  which  she  had  come  hither,  and 
which  had  kept  her  here  for  three  years  past — was  to  obtain  posses- 
sion of  these  material  and  unquestionable  proofs  of  the  authenticity  of 
her   theory." 

28  The  Identity  of  Shakespeare  as  a  Writer  of 
Plays.  A  chapter  in  The  Biography  and  Bibliog- 
raphy of  Shakespeare.  By  Henry  G.  Bohn. 
Privately-printed  (40  copies)  for  the  Philobiblon  So- 
ciety.      London,   1863.       (See  pages  291-300.) 

Pro-Sh. 

This  chapter  gives  a  sketch  of  the  various  anti-Shake- 
spearian works,  following  it  by  the  historical  and  contemporary 
evidence  in  favor  of  Shakespeare,  derived  from  Ben  Jonson, 
Francis  Meres,   Milton,   Greene,   Basse,   etc.,  and  adds: 

"The  positive  testimony  of  Ben  Jonson  alone,  who,  though  Shake- 
speare's friend,  was  a  rival,  and  not  at  all  likely  to  concede  more  than 
belonged  to  him,  ought  in  itself  be  a  sufficient  answer.  He  was  con- 
stantly near  the  poet;   knew  what   he  wrote,  and  when  he  wrote;   and 


—  26   — 

after  his  death  was  engaged  in  promoting  the  publication  of  his  works. 
In  conjunction  with  him,  John  Heminge  and  Henry  Condell,  Shake- 
speare's intimate  friends  and  fellow-players,  and  who  are  recognized  as 
such  in  his  will,  attest  the  authorship  of  all  the  plays  in  the  first  folio, 
by  subscribing  themselves  as  witnesses.  This  volume,  too,  is  dedicated 
to  those  high-minded  noblemen,  William,  Earl  of  Pembroke,  and  Philip, 
Earl  of  Montgomery,  who  would  not,  and  could  not,  have  consented  to 
let  themselves  be  made  party  to  a  notorious  fraud.  Indeed,  King 
James  himself,  as  well  as  the  Earl  of  vSouthampton  (who  was  intimate 
with  both  Lord  Bacon  and  Shakespeare)  and  all  the  players,  playwrights, 
and  literati  of  the  day,  must  have  been  acquiescent  in  the  contemptible 
and  gratuitous  deception — may  we  not  say  forgery  ?" 

"  In  conclusion,  we  will  only  observe  that  Shakespeare  had  jealous 
and  watchful  rivals  enough  to  expose  him  had  any  suspicion  existed  of 
his  not  being  the  actual  author  of  the  fame-absorbing  plays  which 
bore  his  name  during  his  life-time." 

29     Lord  Palmerston.     An  article  in  Eraser's  Maga- 
zine, London,  November,  1865. 

Anii-Sh. 

Page  666  contains  the  paragraph  usually  relied  upon  to 
prove  Lord  Palmerston's  belief  in  the  Baconian  theory  : 

"  Literature  was  the  fashion  of  Lord  Palmerston's  early  days,  when 
(as  Sydney  Smith  remarked)  a  false  quantity  in  a  man  was  pretty 
nearly  the  same  as  ?i  faux  pas  in  a  woman.  He  was  tolerably  well  up 
in  the  chief  Latin  and  English  classics;  but  he  entertained  one  of  the 
most  extraordinary  paradoxes  touching  the  greatest  of  them,  that  was 
ever  broached  by  a  man  of  his  intellectual  calibre.  He  maintained 
that  the  plays  of  Shakespeare  were  really  written  by  Bacon,  who  passed 
them  off  under  the  name  of  an  actor,  for  fear  of  compromising  his 
professional  prospects  and  philosophic  gravity.  Only  last  year  when 
this  subject  was  discussed  at  Broadlands,  Lord  Palmerston  suddenly  left 
the  room,  and  speedily  returned  with  a  small  volume  of  dramatic  criti- 
cisms, in  which  the  same  theory  (originally  started  by  an  American 
lady)  was  supported  by  supposed  analogies  of  thought  and  expression. 
•There,'  he  said,  'read  that  and  you  will  come  to  my  opinion.'  When 
the  positive  testimony  of  Ben  Jonson,  in  the  verses  prefixed  to  the 
edition  of  1623,  was  adduced,  he  remarked,  'O,  those  fellows  always 
stand  up  for  one  another,  or  he  may  have  been  deceived  like  the  rest.' 
The  argument  had  struck  Lord  Palmerston  by  its  originality,  and  he 
wanted  leisure  for  a  searching  exposure  of  its  groundlessness." 

The  volume  alluded  to  was  Smith's  Bacon  and  Shakespeare. 


—    27  — 

30  Miss  Delia  Bacon.  Chapter  XL,  in  Mrs.  John 
Farrar's  Recollections  of  Seventy  Tears.  Boston  : 
Ticknor  &  Fields,  1866.     i6mo.    (Pages  319-331.) 

U)ic. 

An  interesting  account  of  Miss  Bacon's  historical  lectures, 
and  of  her  subsequent  experiences  in  England. 

"She  [Miss  Bacon]  had  no  notion  of  going  to  England  to  teach 
history;  all  she  wanted  to  go  for  was  to  obtain  proof  of  the  truth  of 
her  theory,  that  Shakespeare  did  not  write  the  plays  attributed  to  him, 
but  that  Lord  Bacon  did.  *  *  *  The  lady  whom  she  was  visiting 
put  her  copy  of  his  works  out  of  sight,  and  never  allowed  her  to 
converse  with  her  on  this,  her  favorite  subject.  \N'e  considered  it 
dangerous  for  Miss  Bacon  to  dwell  on  this  fancy,  and  thought  that,  if 
indulo-ed,  it  might  become  a  monomania,  which  it  subsequently  did." 
*«•*****  *  *  * 
"She  suffered  many  privations  [in  London]  during  the  time  that  she 
was  writing  her  book.  She  lived  on  the  poorest  food,  and  was  often 
without  the  means  of  having  a  fire  in  her  chamber.  She  told  me  that 
she  wrote  a  great  part  of  her  large  octavo  volume  sitting  up  in  bed,  in 
order  to  keep  warm." 

31  Notes  and  Queries.  London.  Third  Series. 
From  Q,,  with  editorial  answer,  ix,  155,  February 

24,   1866. 

Unc. 

32  The  Authorship  of  Shakespeare.  By  Na- 
thaniel Holmes.  New  York :  Hurd  &  Hough- 
ton, 1866,  i2mo.  pp.  601.  Second  edition,  1868. 
(Third  edition,  with  appendix,  referred  to  here- 
after, 1876,  pp.  696.) 

Anti-Sh. 

Judge  Holmes  is  the  aposUe  of  Baconianism.  His  book, 
first  pubHshcd  in  1866,  has  gone  through  several  editions, 
and  has  been  regarded  as  the  text-book  and  authority  for  all 
controversialists  on  that  side.  Though  largely  reviewed  and 
discussed,  there  has  been  but  one  book  written  direcdy  in 
answer  to  it — that  of  Mr.   King. 

We  can  not  do  better  than  to  give  Judge  Holmes's  theorem 
in  his  own  language  (hitherto  unpublished): 


—    28  — 

"This  work  undertakes  to  demonstrate,  not  only  that  William 
Shakespeare  did  not,  but  that  Francis  Bacon  did,  write  the  plays  and 
poems.  It  presents  a  critical  view  of  the  personal  history  of  the  two 
men,  their  education,  learning,  attainments,  surroundings,  and  associates, 
the  contemporaneousness  of  the  writings  in  question,  in  prose  and  verse, 
an  account  of  the  earlier  plays  and  editions,  the  spurious  plays,  and 
'  the  true  original  copies.'  It  gives  some  evidence  that  Bacon  was 
known  to  be  the  author  by  some  of  his  contemporaries.  It  shows  in 
what  manner  William  Shakespeare  came  to  have  the  reputation  of 
being  the  writer.  It  exhibits  a  variety  of  facts  and  circumstances, 
which  are  strongly  suggestive  of  Bacon  as  the  real  author.  A  compar- 
ison of  the  writings  of  contemporary  authors  in  prose  and  verse,  proves 
that  no  other  writer  of  that  age,  but  Bacon,  can  come  into  any  com- 
petition for  the  authorship.  It  sifts  out  a  chronological  order  of  the 
production  of  the  plays,  and  of  the  several  writings  of  Bacon,  ascer- 
taining the  exact  dates,  whenever  possible,  and  shows  that  the  more 
significant  parallelisms  run  in  the  same  order,  and  are  of  such  a  nature, 
both  by  their  dates  and  their  own  character,  as  absolutely  to  preclude 
all  possibility  of  borrowing,  otherwise  than  as  Bacon  borrowed  from 
himself.  It  is  amply  demonstrated  that  mere  common  usage,  or  the 
ordinary  practice  of  writers,  can  furnish  no  satisfactory  explanation  of 
these  parallelisms  and  identities.  There  is  a  continuous  presentation  of 
parallel  or  identical  passages,  throughout  the  work,  with  such  commen- 
tary as  was  deemed  necessary  or  advisable  in  order  to  bring  out  their 
full  force  and  significance;  and  twenty  pages  of  minor  parallelisms  are 
given  in  one  body,  without  commentary." 

"It  gives  some  extensive  proofs  that  Bacon  was  a  poet,  and  sug- 
gests some  reasons  for  his  concealment  of  his  poetical  authorship. 
There  is  some  indication  of  the  object  and  purpose  the  author  had  in 
view  in  writing  these  plays.  It  is  shown  that  the  tenor  of  their  teach- 
ing is  in  keeping  with  Bacon's  ideas  upon  the  subject  treated  in  them. 
The  latter  half  of  the  book  presents  more  especially  the  parallelism  in 
scientific  and  philosophical  thought,  with  a  view  to  show  the  identity 
of  the  plays  and  the  writings  of  Bacon,  in  respect  to  their  philosophy 
and  standard  of  criticism;  and  in  this  there  is  an  endeavor  to  show 
that  the  character  and  drift  of  the  philosophy  of  Bacon  (as  well  as 
that  of  the  plays)  was  substantially  identical  with  the  realistic  idealism 
of  the  more  modern,  as  of  the  more  ancient  writers  on  the  subject." 

"It  is  recognized  that  the  evidence  drawn  from  historical  facts 
and  biographical  circumstances,  are  not  in  themselves  alone  entirely  con- 
clusive of  the  matter,  however  suggestive  or  significant  as  clearing  the  way 
for  more  decisive  proofs,  or  as  raising  a  high  degree  of  probability  ;  and  it 
is  conceded,  that,  in  the  absence  of  more  direct  evidence,  the  most  decisive 
proof  attainable  is  to  be  found  in  a  critical  and  thorough  comparison  of 
the  writings  themselves,  and  that  such  a  comparison  will  clearly  establish 
the  identity  of  the  author  as  no  other  than  Francis  Bacon." 


—    29  — 

We  have  been  recently  assured  by  Judge  Holmes,  that  he 
has  seen  nothing  in  any  new  fact,  criticism,  or  discussion  of 
the  subject,  that  has  in  the  least  degree  shaken  his  convictions. 

(Hon.  Nathaniel  Holmes  is  a  graduate  of  Harvard  Uni- 
versity, in  the  class  of  1837.  Since  1839  he  has  practiced 
law  in  St.  Louis  for  the  greater  part  of  the  time,  but  was, 
from  1865  to  1868,  Judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Missouri, 
and  from  1868  to  1872,  a  Professor  of  Law  in  the  Law 
School  of  Harvard.  He  has  now  retired  from  professional 
life,  and  resides  at  Cambridge,   Mass.) 

23  Notice  of  Judge  Holmes's  Work.  In  The  Nation^ 
New  York,  March  29,   1866,  p.  402. 

Pro-Sh. 

34  The  Authorship  of  Shakespeare.  A  review  of 
Holmes's  Authorship  in  the  Brooklyn  (N.  Y.)  Daily 
£ag-le,  October  24,   1866.     2  columns. 

Pro-Sh. 

35  Did  Shakespeare  Write  Shakespeare?  Re- 
view of  Holmes's  Authorship  in  the  Round  Table, 
New  York,   October  27,    1866.     4  columns. 

Pro-Sh. 

36  Hypotheses  of  Shakespearian  Criticism.  In 
the  Home  Journal^  New  York,  October  27,  1866. 
3  columns. 

Pro-Sh. 

37  The  Authorship  of  Shakespeare.  A  review  of 
Holmes,  in  the  Jewish  Messetiger.,  New  York,  No- 
vember 2,   1866.      I    column. 

Pro-Sh. 

38  Shakespeare.  Was  he  Himself  or  Somebody 
Else? 

ci — Article  in  the   Springfield  (Mass.)  Republican, 
November  7,   1866.     2^  columns. 

b — In    same   paper,  a  letter    from    its    Boston   cor- 
respondent, November  3,   1866 

Pro-Sh, 


—  3°  — 

39  The  Authorship  of  Shakespeare.     A  communi 

cation  from    Richard  J.   Hinton,  of  Washingtorv 

D.  C.      In  the  Round  Table,  New  York,  Nov.  17, 

1866.     3  columns. 

Anti-Sh. 

Mr.  Hinton  writes  this  to  call  the  attention  of  the  pub- 
lic to  the  position  taken  by  Mr.  O'Connor  in  his  Harrington 
novel. 

40  Bacon  vs.    Shakespeare.      An   article   in   review 

of  Judge  Holmes.       In  the    New  York    Methodist, 

November  17,   1866.     i^  columns. 

Pro-Sh. 

41  Was   Lord    Bacon   an   Impostor?      In   Eraser's 

Magazine,  London,  December,  1866. 

Unc. 

There  are  incidental  allusions  to  the  authorship  on  pages 
718,  721,  730,  and  731.  It  was  answered  by  Baron  Liebig, 
in  Fraser  of  April,  1867,  under  the  same  title,  without  special 
reference  to  this  question. 

42  Holmes's  Authorship  of  Shakespeare.  [B}^  A. 
G.  Sedgwick.]  In  North  American  Review,  Jan- 
uary, 1867.     2|  pages. 

Pro-Sh. 

43  Holmes's  Authorship  of  Shakespeare.  In  Lit- 
erary Notices,  Harfers  Magazine,  January,  1867, 

p.  263.     \  page. 

Pro  Sh. 

44  Bacon  and  Shakespeare.      A  letter  from  James 

H.  Hackett.       In  the  Evening  Post,  New  York, 

lanuary  26,   1867.     2  columns. 

Pro-Sh. 

45  Was  Bacon  the  Author  of  Shakespeare?  Two 
articles  by  Marmontel,  in  the  Chistian  Observer 
and  Presbyterian  Witness,  Richmond,  Va.  The 
first  dated  Februar}--  7,   1867.     2  columns  each. 

Pro-Sh. 


—  31  — 

46  The  Authorship  of  Shakespeare.     A  review  of 

Holmes  in  the   Athcnceiuii,  London,    February  23, 

1867,  page  249. 

Pro-Sh. 

47  The  Authorship  of  Shakespeare.  An  article  in 
review  of  Holmes,  in  the  Saturday  Reader,  Mon- 
treal, Canada,  April  6,  1867.     2  columns. 

Pro-Sh. 

48  Communications  in  the  Daily  Gazette,  Birming- 
ham, England. 

a— By  T.  H.  P.,  May  27,  1867. 

b — By  William  Henry  Smith,  July   i,  1867. 

c—By  T.  H.  P.,  July  i,  1867. 

Unc. 

49  Delia  Bacon.  By  Sidney  E.  Holmes.  [Mrs. 
Sarah  E.  Henshaw.]  In  The  Advance,  Chicago, 
December    26,   1867.     i^  columns. 

Unc. 

A  tribute  to  the  memory  of  Delia  Bacon,  including  a  men- 
tion of  her  theory,  by  a  former  friend  and   pupil. 

"Delia  Bacon  was  a  woman  of  a  genius  rare  and  incomparable 
Wherever  she  went,  there  walked  a  queen  in  the  realm  of  mind.  To 
converse  with  her  was  to  be  carried  captive.  The  most  ordinary  topic 
became  fascinating  when  she  dealt  with  it,  for  whatever  subject  she 
touched,  she  invested  with  her  own  wonderful  wealth  of  thought  and 
illustration,  and  association,  and  imagery,  until  all  else  was  forgotten  in 
her  magical  converse." 

*  «  ;;;»;;;  *»**«* 

"Her  theory  of  Shakespeare  has  been  accepted  by  some  able  minds. 
Had  she  lived  to  advocate  it,  it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  it  would 
have  deeply  impressed  the  literary  world.  But  while  she  was  in  the 
midst  of  her  researches,  that  fine  intellect,  overwrought  and  too  highly 
sublimated,  fell  into  confusion,  and  henceforth  was  to  be,  as  was  that 
of  the  Hamlet  which  she  had  so  often  analyzed,  Mike  sweet  bells  jan- 
gled, out  of  tune,  and  harsh.'  Thus  discredit  was  thrown  upon  her 
favorite    theory,  and   a   melancholy  key   afforded   to   some   of  her    later 


—  32  — 

experiences.  'O!  What  a  noble  mind  was  here  o'erthrown!'  Alas! 
Alas!  Who  would  have  thought  that  these  words,  so  often  read  and 
dwelt  upon  in  her  study  of  the  great  dramatist,  were  but  the  prophecy 
of  her  own  tragical  end  ?" 

50  Did  William  Shakespeare  write  Shakespeare's 
Plays?  Chapter  XIII,  in  The  Shakespeare  Treas- 
ury of  Wisdom  and  Knowledge.  By  Chas.  W. 
Stearns,  M.  D.      New  York:      G.   P.  Putnam's 

Sons,   1869  and  1878.     See  pages  394-413. 

Pro-Sh. 


Assuming  that  there  is  no  possible  question  as  to  the  au- 
thorship of  the  poems,  Dr.  Stearns  shows  the  paralleHsms  in 
thought  and  expression  between  the  poems  and  the  plays,  as 
conclusive  evidence  in  favor  of  Shakespeare. 

51  Did  Bacon  Write  Shakespeare?  An  anonymous 
article    in    the   New  York    Clipper,  May  i,   1869. 

\\  columns. 

Una. 

52  A  Conference  of  Pleasure,  Composed  for  some 
festive  occasion  about  the  year  1592.  By  Francis 
Bacon.  Edited  from  a  Manuscript  belonging  to 
the  Duke  of  Northumberland.  By  Jaivies  Sped- 
DiNG.        London:       (Privately-printed)   1870.      4to 

pp.  xxxi,  54. 

Fro-y^h. 

This  was  edited  by  Mr.  Spedding  from  a  portion  of  the 
Northumberland  MSS.  referred  to  by  Judge  Holmes  (see  pages 
657-682,  edition  of  1876).  These  MSS.  were  found  in  1867, 
in  a  box  of  old  papers,  which  had  probably  lain  for  nearly  a 
century  unopened,  in  the  library  of  Northumberland  House  in 
London.  With  them  was  a  MS.  dde-page,  indicating  that  the 
paper  book  which  it  covered  had  once  contained,  in  addition 
to  the  four  speeches  composing  the  Conference  of  Plensure, 
several  other  of  Bacon's  orations  and  essays      Also,  Richard  II, 


—  33  — 

Richard  III,  Asmund  and  Cornelia,  Thomas  Nashe's  Isle 
of  Dogs,  and  papers  by  other  authors.  Of  these,  only  a  part 
remained,  when  the  document  was  discovered,  the  Shake- 
speare plays  being  amongst  the  missing.  The  MSS.  were  in 
bad  condition,  from  fire  and  the  ravages  of  time — the  edges 
being  badly  burned,  probably  from  a  fire  which  occured  in 
Northumberland  House  in  1780. 

Accompanying  Mr.  Spedding's  book  is  a  fac-simile  of  this 
MS.  title-page,  and  it  is  on  this  that  tiie  interest  turns.  It  shows, 
in  addition  to  the  original  table  of  contents,  a  mass  of  scrib- 
blings,  written  all  over  the  sheet,  containing  a  variety  of 
names,  phrases,  quotations,  idly  and  carelessly  written,  appa- 
rently by  some  copyist  or  clerk.  Amongst  these  scribblings 
occurs  the  name  of  Frauncis  Bacon  several  times,  and  that  of 
William  Shakespeare  eight  or  nine  times  repeated.  As  to  its 
date,  Mr.  Spedding  says:  "All  I  can  say  is  that  I  find 
nothing,  either  in  these  later  scribblings,  or  what  remains  of 
the  book  itself,  to  indicate  a  date  later  than  the  reign  of 
Elizabeth."  Further,  that  he  finds  no  traces  of  the  handwrit- 
ing of  Bacon. 

The  reference  to  this  question  is  to  be  found  in  the  intro- 
duction, pages   xxii-xxv. 

Mr.  Spedding  discovers  nothing  in  these  MSS.  to  disturb 
his  belief  in  the  Shakespearian  authorship,  and  regards  it  as 
a  simple  coincidence  that  the  productions  of  Shakespeare  and 
Bacon  should  be  copied  in  the  same  book,  and  their  names 
scribbled  on  the  title-page.  "At  the  present  time,"  he  says, 
"if  the  waste  leaf  on  which  a  law-stationer's  apprentice  tries 
his  pens  were  examined,  I  should  expect  to  find  on  it  the 
name  of  the  poet,  novelist,  dramatic  author,  or  actor  of  the 
day,  mixed  with  snatches  of  the  last  new  song,"  etc,  ^  =)<  * 
"And  that  is  exactly  the  sort  of  thing  we  have  here."  Judge 
Holmes,  however,  ventures  the  suggestion  that  they  may  have 
been  made  in  Bacon's  own  study,  by  his  own  amanuensis ;  that 
this  fact  would  account  for  the  two  names  being  scribbled  on 
the  title-leaf  by  one  in  the  secret;  and  that  Bacon  himself  may 
have  destroyed  the  missing  Shakespeare  plays  before  his  death, 
by  way  of  suppressing  the  evidence  of  his  authorship. 

These  MSS.  are   especially  interesting   from   the   fact  that 


—  34  — 

if  the  scribblings  are  of  a  date  contemporary  with  Shake- 
speare and  Bacon,  it  is  beheved  to  be  the  only  place  where 
their  names  have  been  found  mentioned  together  in  anything 
written  in  that  age. 

53  Notice  of  Holmes's  Authorship.  In  the  Min- 
neapolis   (Minn.)    Tribune,    of    March     23,     1870. 

I  column. 

Unc. 

This  article  refers  to  a  lecture  delivered  m  Minneapolis  in 
the  winter  of  1872-73,  by  Hon.  Ignatius  Donnelly,  of  Min- 
nesota, taking  the  position  that  the  pro-Bacon  argument  was 
a  strong  one,  but  not  conclusive;  in  short,  that  the  verdict 
must  be  the  Scotch  one,  "not  proven."  It  is  understood 
that  Mr.  Donnelly  is  now  engaged  upon  a  work,  in  which, 
after  further  thought  and  study  of  the  question,  he  takes  the 
ground  that  Bacon  was  the  author  of  both  the  plays  and 
poems.     It  is  expected  that  it  will  be  published  soon. 

54  The  Baconian  Origin  of  Shakespeare's  Plays, 
being  some  facts  and  arguments  going  to  show  that 
the  dramatic  works  imputed  to  William  Shake- 
speare were  not,  and  could  not  have  been,  written 
by  him,  but  were  the  production  of  Lord  Bacon. 
By  Rev.  A.  B.  Bradford,  of  Enon,  Pa.  A  lec- 
ture, printed  in  the  Golden  Age,  Ma^^  30,  1874. 
Also,  in  the  Argus  and  Radical,  Beaver,  Pa., 
December   29,   1875.     ^  columns. 

The  author  is  a  strong  Baconian.  He  follows  mainly  the 
same  line  of  argument  as  Judge   Holmes. 

55  Shakespeare  and  Lord  Bacon.  By  "  Colley 
CiBBER."  [James  Rees].  A  series  of  six  articles 
in  the  Sunday  Mercury,  Philadelphia,  for  June  7, 
14,  21 ,  and  28  ;  and  July  5  and  12,  1874.    9  columns. 

Pro-Sh, 


—  35  — 

The  writer  takes  for  his  motto:  "Mingle  no  matter  of 
doubtful  with  the  simplicity  of  truth,"  from  Ben  Jonson's 
Discoveries.    The  articles  cover  the  whole  range  of  the  subject. 

56  Authenticity  of  Shakespeare's  Plays.  By 
"Gallery  Critic'  A  series  of  twelve  articles 
in  the  Sunday  Rcftihhc,  Philadelphia,  for  June 
28;  July  5,  12,  19,  and  26;  August  2,  9,  16,  23, 
and  30;  September  6  and  20,   1874.     ^^  columns. 

Anti-Sh. 

Written  in  answer  to  "  Colley  Gibber"  above,  and  fully 
as  comprehensive.     The  author  is  unknown. 

57  The  Shakespeare-Bacon  Controversy.  Two 
short  notices  in  the  American  Bibhopohst,  New 
York,  for  July  and  August,  1874. 

a — Letter  from  Hibernicus. 

h — Did  Bacon  write  Shakespeare? 

Pro-Sh. 

58  Who  Wrote  "  Shakespere ?"  By  J.  V.  P. 
[J.  V.  Prichard]?  In  Erasers  Magazine.,  Lon- 
don, August,  1874.  (Reproduced  in  Littcirs  Liv- 
ing Age,  October,  1874).     ^'^  pages. 

Anti-Sh. 

This  is  a  noted  article  in  the  controversy.  On  it  were 
founded  the  series  of  opinions,  interviews,  etc.,  appearing  soon 
after  m  the  New  York  Herald,  and  frequent  reference  to  it 
will  be  found  in  the  writings  on  the  subject.  The  article 
itself  is  devoted  mainly  to  a  very  full  and  complete  summary 
of  Judge  Holmes's  book,  with  many  extracts  and  references. 

The  name  of  the  writer  has  not  generally  been  known. 
Mr.  Wilkes,  in  his  book,  speaks  ot  the  paper  as  an  "exceed- 
ingly ingenious  article,  written  by  a  young  American,"  whom 
he  met  in  London  at  the  time  of  the  publication ;  but  does 
not  give  his  name.  We  have  sufficient  reason,  however,  for 
crediting  it  to  Mr.  J.  V.  Prichard. 


-36- 

59  Notes  and  Queries.  London.  Fifth  Series. 
a — From  C.  A.  Ward,  ii,  i6i,  August  29,  1874. 

b — From  Jabez  [Dr.  Ingleby],  11,  246,  Sept.  26,  1874. 
c— From  H.  S.  Skipton,  11,  350,  Oct.  31,  1874. 

Unc. 

60  Shakespeare — An  Interesting  Discussion.  Who 
wrote  Shakespeare?  In  the  New  York  Herald, 
September  6,  1874. 

a — Letter  from  London,  embodying  a  copy  of  the 

"J.  V.  P."  article  in  Erasers  Magazine. 

h — Did    Bacon     write     Shakespeare's     Plays?    an 

editorial  article. 

Unc. 

The  commencement  of  the  interesting  series  of  articles- 
communications,  interviews,  editorials,  etc.— appearing  in  the 
Herald  during  September  and  October,  which  will  be  found 
in  subsequent  titles.  It  has  not  been  thought  necessary  to 
add  to  them  many  notes  or  explanadons,  as  the  head-lines 
have  been  liberally  copied,  and  serve  to  explain  their  general 
tenor. 

61  Was  Shakespeare  a  Dummy?  Opinions  of  Live 
Dramatic  Authorities  on  the  subject.  The  Press 
and  Pubhc  taking  up  the  discussion.  Baconians 
rather  rare.     In  the  Herald,  Sept.  8,  1874. 

a — Who  wrote  Bacon?  by  Franklin. 
^—Shakespeare    as   a    Stage    Manager,    from    the 

Brooklyn  Eagle. 
c— Let  Shakespeare  Alone,  from   the   Philadelphia 

Press. 
J— Shakespeare  and  Bacon,  an  editorial. 

Unc. 

This  article  also  gives  interviews  with  Dion  Boucicault, 
Howard  Paul,  Bret  Harte,  Richard  Grant  White,  Nym  Crin- 
kle [A.  C.  Wheeler],  and  Lester  Wallack.  It  is  proper  to  say 
that  Mr.  White  disavows  the  interview. 


—  37  — 

62  Shakespeare  or  Bacon?  Commentators,  Qiiid- 
nuncs,  and  Annotators.  In  the  Herald,  Septem- 
ber 9,    1874. 

a — Views  of  men   who    have    studied   the   subject. 
/,_The  EHzabethan  Era,  by  A.  M. 
c — Letters  from  "Old  Punch  Writer"  and  "Garrick." 

Unc. 

This  issue  comprises  interviews  with  John  Brougham,  A. 
Oakey  Hall,  E.  C.  Stedman,  and  Mayor  Havemeyer.  Mr. 
Hall  gives  the  opinions,  also,  of  William  E.  Burton,  James  T. 
Brady,  and  "Falstaff"  Hackett. 

63  Shakespeare.  Explanations  as  to  why  the  au- 
thenticity of  the  plays  are  doubted.  The  origin 
of  the  Baconian  theory.  In  the  Herald,  Septem- 
ber 10,   1874. 

a — View^s  of  Horace  Howard  Furness. 

/; — Bacon  did  not  write  Shakespeare,  by  R.  Davey. 

c — Editorial  article. 

Pro-Sh. 

64  A  Shakespearean  Mare's  Nest.  In  New  York 
Times,  September  10,  1874. 

<:/_The  Intellectual  Department  of  the  Herald,  etc., 
in  Philadelphia  Evening  Bulletin,  September 
8,  1874. 

/;_The  Hogs  Again.  In  Philadelphia  Press,  Sep- 
tember 7,  1874. 

'  Pro-Sh. 

All  of  these  are  editorials,  an.i  devoted  mainly  to  the 
humorous  disparjgement  of  the  Herald  articles. 

"  The  voice  of  the  interviewer  is  still  heard  in  the  land.  *  *  * 
His  mind  is  racked  as  to  the  authenticity  of  Shakespeare's  works. 
>s-  *  *  The  great  absurdity  of  the  fancy  or  notion  (for  it  does  not 
attain  to  the  dignity  of  a  theory),  is  that,  starling  from  the  point  that 
it  is  incredible  to  believe  that  Shakespeare  could  have  written  his 
plays,  so  astonishing   are   their  evidences  of  knowledge,  and  of  mental 


-38- 

power,  it  aJds  these  plays  to  the  wonderful  offspring  of  Bacon's  mind, 
thus  seeking  to  set  aside  one  fact  assumed  to  be  monstrously  incredible 
by  setting  up  another,  still  more  monstrous  and  still  more  incredible. 
Slinkespeare  is  impossible,  but  Bacon //mj  Shakespeare  is  possible!" — 
Daily    Times. 

"The  intellectual  department  of  the  New  York  Herald  has  begun 
to  devote  its  energies  to  the  settlement  of  the  authorship  of  Shake- 
speare's plays,  and  in  pursuance  of  its  purpose  it  has  obtained  the 
opinions  of  several  eminent  citizens  of  New  York  upon  the  subject. 
A  feeling  of  sadness,  perhaps  of  gloom,  will  overspread  the  world  when 
the  fact  becomes  public  that  the  person  known  as  'Nym  Crinkle'  has 
expressed  the  conviction  that  Shake>peare  did  not  write  the  dramas  in 
question.  *  *  *  *  In  the  meantime,  while  these  giant  minds 
in  New  York  are  wrestling  with  the  great  Subject,  the  vast  multitude 
of  us  sit  here  in  the  outer  darkness,  unable  to  scale  the  intellectual 
heights  reached  by  Crinkle  and  the  rest,  but  waiting  with  nervous 
anxiety  the  result  of  their  deliberations." — Evening  Bulletin. 

65  Shadowy  Shakespeare.  A  graphic  interview  with 
the  disembodied  Bard.  He  admits  being  a  Bouci- 
cault.  Lord  Bacon's  wraith  refuses  to  tell  his  se- 
cret.    In  the  Herald,  September  11,   1874. 

a — Opinions  of  Judge  Pierrepont,  John  E.  Owens, 

and  Daniel  Dougherty. 

f) — Shakespeare  a  spirit  medium.    By  J.  B.  Burgess. 

c — Did  Shakespeare  write  Bacon?     By  J.  E.  T. 

^/— A  Poser  from  Scotia.     By  Th.  Ainslie. 

Unc. 

This  contains  an  alleged  interview  with  the  spirit  of  Shake- 
speare, through  Foster,  the  medium,  with  the  result  as  above. 
Bacon  was  also  assumed  to  be  present,  but  "  would  not  talk." 

66  Shakespeare  or  Bacon?  In  the  Herald,  Sep- 
tember 12,   1874. 

«— Et  tu,  Brute?  by  T. 

I, — Bacon  never  claimed  them,  by  Ylon. 

c — Sir  Walter  Scott's  idea,  by  Hibernicus. 

(J — A  word  for  him,  by  Solferino. 

e — Puzzling  Facts,  from  the  Boston  Post. 

Unc. 


—  39  — 

67  Shakespeare  vs.  Bacon.  A  Judicial  Luminary 
SUMS  UP  THE  Charges.  In  the  Herald,  Septem- 
ber 13,   1874. 

a — Interview  with  Recorder  Hackett. 

I) — A  New  View  of  Shakespeare. 

r_The  Value  of  the  Shakespearian  Discussion,  an 

editorial. 

Unc. 

68  The  Shakespeare  Controversy.  In  the  Herald, 
September  14,   1874. 

a — Comparison  of  the  Events  of  Shakespeare's  and 

Bacon's  Lives,  by  Addison  B.  Burk. 
I) — No  one  person  ever  wrote  them,  by  R.  S.   G. 
c — Bacon's  learning  a  point  against  his  authorship, 

by  T.  L.  W. 

Unc. 

69  Authorship  of  Shakespeare.      In   the   Oakland 

(Cal.)    Daily     Transcrip,     September     15,     1874. 

2  columns. 

Pro-Sh. 

70  Shakespeare's  Authorship.  In  the  Herald,  Sep- 
tember 19,  1874. 

a Views   of   Henry    Ward    Beecher  on    the    new 

Criticisms  of  the  Baconian  School. 

3 — Shakespeare  and  his  Contemporaries,  by  C.  G.  G. 

c — A  Quesdon  for  the  Baconians,  by  W.  V. 

^—Bacon's  Lifedme — Pursuit  of  Philosophy  and 
Polidcs  Irreconcilable  with  the  Authorship  of 
Shakespeare's  Plays,  by  J.  E.  Tuel. 

e — The  True   Authorship    Discovered,  by  Bloxon. 

y^— Another  triumph,  from  the  Indianapolis  Sentinel. 

^—Shakespeare.  Who  is  he?  from  the  Lebanon 
(Pa.)  Courier. 

/^_JournaHstic    Enterprise,    from    the    Milwaukee 

News. 

Unc. 


—  4°  — 

71     Shakespeare    and    Bacon.     The    Relations    of 
Shakespeare  to  the  Modern  Stage.     The  Great 
Authors  Contrasted  and  Reviewed.    In  the  Heralds 
September  20,  1874. 
a — Opinion  of  Prof.   Hiram  Corson. 
b — Interview  with    L.   Clarke   Davis,  of  the  Phila- 
delphia  Iiiqiiircr. 
c — Shakespeare  and  the  Stage,  an  editorial. 

Unc. 

72 — Bacon   and   Shakespeare.     In  the  Herald^  Sep- 
tember 21,   1874. 
a — Did    Shakespeare   write  the  Novum  Organum? 

by  S. 
b — Shakespeare's  Soliloquy. 

Unc. 

73 — Carlyle  on  Shakespeare  and  Bacon.  By  Am- 
icus.    In  the  Herald^  September  25,   1874. 

Pro-Sh. 

The  writer  calls  attention  to  Mr.  Carlyle's  views,  in  Heroes 
and  Hero   Worship — Lecture  III. 

"It  is  unexampled,  I  think,  the  calm,  creative  perspicacity  of  Shake- 
speare. Novum  Organum,  and  all  the  intellect  you  will  find  in  Bacon, 
is  of  quite  a  secondary  order — earthly  material,  poor  in  comparison  with 
this.  Amongst  modern  men,  one  finds,  with  strictness,  almost  nothing 
of  the  same  rank.  Goethe  alone,  since  the  days  of  Shakespeare,  re- 
minds one  of  it." — Carlyle. 

74  Shakespeare  and  Bacon.  Two  Opposite  Kinds 
OF  Genius.  In  the  Herald^  September  26,  1874. 
a — Shakespeare's   Blunders    an   Argument   against 

the  Baconians.     Opinion  of  Prof.  O'Leary,  of 

Manhattan  College. 

/^— The   Internal   Evidence   of  the   Plays,  by  The 

Doctor. 

Pro-Sh, 


—  41  — 

75  Who  Wrote  Shakespeare?     In  the //?ra/<;/,  Sep- 
tember 27,   1874. 

a The    answers    of    leading     Corkonians    to    the 

Qiiery. 

b A  few  objections  answered — a  novel  theory  re- 
futed, by  D. 

c_The  Shakespeare  Controversy,  an  editorial. 

Unc. 

76  Shakespeare  and  Bacon.    Contrast  of  the  two 
Minds,  by  M.  D.     In  the  Herald,  Sept.  28,  1874. 

Pro-Sh. 

77  Shakespeare  and  Bacon.     In  the  Herald,  Octo- 
ber 5,  1874. 

^—Intellectual    Distinctions,    as    classified   by   Mc- 

Dermott. 
^_The  Literary  Test,  by  S.  N.  Carvalho. 
c — Shakespeare  not  a  borrower,  by  B.  J.  A. 

Pro-Sh. 

78  Shakespeare  or  Bacon?     In  t\iQ  Herald,  October 
II,    1874. 

a — Opinion  of  Professor  John  S.   Hart. 

b ^The  Progressive  Development  of  Shakespeare's 

Education  in  the  Plays,  by  Franklin. 
c — One   more   Baconian   heard   from ;    letter   from 

Index. 
<^_What  the  old  actors  thought,  by  David  Pollock. 

Unc. 

79  The    Shakespeare   Controversy.      An   editorial 

article  in  the  Herald,  October  11    1874. 

Pro-Sh. 

With  this  number,  the  Herald  supposed  the  discussion 
in  its  columns  closed  (though,  as  it  will  be  seen,  there  was 
one  more  article),  and  gave  an  editorial  summary  of  its  con- 
clusions.     Extract : 


—  42  — 

"Up  to  this  time  we  have  declined  to  interpolate  our  own  opinion 
upon  the  authorship;  but  now,  in  closing  the  discussion,  after  yielding 
ample  time  and  space  to  those  who  wished  to  take  part  in  it,  we  must 
say  that  the  weight  of  testimony  is  altogether  against  the  claim  made 
for  Bacon.  Nothing  new  has  been  advanced  in  behalf  of  the  Holmes 
theory,  while  on  the  contrary,  the  internal  evidence  of  the  plays,  and 
the  facts  of  history,  have  been  overwhelmingly  shown  to  be  in  favor 
of  Shakespeare   as   the   author.  *     *     *     We  believe,  in  short,  that 

nothing  has  been  said  in  this  debate  to  weaken  our  faith  in  Shake- 
speare, while  much  has  been  shown  which  strengthens  it.  William 
Shakespeare  is,  therefore,  in  our  opinion,  the  author  of  the  plays 
which  in  his  own  day,  and  ever  since,  have  been  attributed  to  him 
by  universal  consent,  and  the  plea  made  for  Bacon  is  of  '  such  stuff 
as  dreams  are  made  on,'  a  theory  which  has  for  its  chief  use  to  make 
the   fame   of  Shakespeare   more  glorious." 

80  Shakespeare.  In  the  Herald,  October  19,  1874. 
a — A  letter  to  the  editor  of  the  Herald,  from  the 

writer  of  the  Eraser  article,  [J.  V.  Prichard]? 
dated  London,  October  i,   1874. 
h — A   New   Point  i.i  the    Discussion,   an    editorial. 

Unc. 

The  last  of  the  Herald  articles.  The  Fraser  writer  intro- 
duces several  matters  not  within  the  scope  of  his  first  paper, 
such  as  the  discovery  of  the  Northumberland  manuscripts,  and 
the  claim  that  Bacon  was  the  author  of  Richard  II,  arising 
out  of  the  conversation  between  Queen  Elizabeth  and  Lord 
Bacon  at  the  time  of  the  Essex  treason.  The  latter  is  answered 
by  the  Herald. 

81  Shakespeare's  Centurie  of  Prayse,  being  mate- 
rials for  a  histor}'  of  opinion  on  Shakespeare  and 
his  works,  culled  from  the  writers  of  the  first  cen- 
tury after  his  rise.  By  C.  M.  Ingleby,  LL.D. 
For  the  Editor.  London:  1874.  8vo.  pp.  362. 
(Second  edition,  for  the  New  Shakespere  So- 
ciety, revised  with  many  additions,  by  Lucy  Toul- 

MiN  Smith.     London:    1879.    -^"^P*  ^^^'  PP- 47^-) 

Unc. 


—  43  — 

There  may  be  a  question  as  to  the  propriety  of  inserting 
this  title,  but  it  is  so  often  referred  to,  and  is  so  important 
an  authority  in  the  investigation  of  the  subject,  that  it  seems 
to  be  justifiable. 

"To  my  mind,  there  is  no  book  printed  that  is  a  stronger  argu- 
ment against  the  Baconians  than  is  Dr.  Ingleby's  Cetiturie  oj  Prayse. 
Although  to  prove  that  Shakespeare  wrote  the  dramas  attributed  to 
him  formed  no  part  of  the  motive  of  its  publication,  yet  the  work 
does  prove  it^  and  most  completely." — Joseph  Crosby. 

82  The  Tendency  to  Skepticism.  A  short  editorial 
notice  of  the  theor}^  in  Scribners  Monthly,  for  Jan- 
uary,  1875,  p.  392. 

Pro-Sh. 

•'Skepticism  is  the  characteristic  of  the  period,  and  the  more  mis- 
chief it  accomplishes,  the  better  pleased  its  votaries  are.  Opinions  that 
have  prevailed  for  centuries,  and  have  received  the  sanction  of  the  wiseft 
and  best,  are  especially  obnoxious  to  them.  '•  *  *  «  To  admit  the 
Baconian  theory  of  Shakespeare,  except  as  an  ingenious  piece  of  pleas- 
antry, demands  a  brain  so  addled  with  theory  as  to  be  incapable  of 
literary  judgment,  or  a  capacity  for  credulity  not  given  to  mere  common- 
place mortals." 

83  Notes  and  Queries.  London.  Fifth  Series. 
«— From  C.  A.  Ward,  in,  32,  January  9,   1875. 

b — From  H.  S.  Skipton,   and  Jabez  [Dr.  Ingleby], 

III,  193,  March  6,   1875. 
c — From  C.  A.  Ward,  in,  458,  June  5,  1875. 
^— From  Jabez,  iv,  55,  July   17,  1875. 

Unc. 

84  Bacon  versus  Shakespere.  A  Plea  for  the  De- 
fendant. By  Thomas  D.  King.  Montreal,  and 
Rouse's  Point,  N.  Y. :  Lovell  Printing  and  Pub- 
lishing Company,  1875.       i2mo.  pp.  187. 

Pro-Sh. 

Mr.  King's  book  is  an  answer  to  Judge  Holmes,  and  is 
intensely  Shakespearian.  He  instances  the  testimony  of  Ben 
Jonson,  Heminge,  and  Condell,  in  the  folio  of  1623,  and  im- 
pliedly   that  of  Pembroke,    Montgomery,    and   Southampton, 


—  44  — 

who,  if  there  was  an  untruth,  must  have  been  accessories  to 
it.  He  also  rehes  on  other  contemporary  evidence,  which  he 
cites,  of  which  we  give  only  that  of  Francis  Meres,  in  the 
Palladis   Tamia  (Wit's  Treasury),  1598. 

"  As  Plautus  and  Seneca  are  accounted  the  best  for  Comedy  and 
Tragedy  among  the  Latines:  so  Shakespeare  among  the  English  is  the 
most  excellent  in  both  kinds  for  the  stage ;  for  Comedy  witness  his 
Gentlemen  of  Verona^  his  Errors,  his  Love  labors  lost,  his  Love  labours 
wonne,  his  Midsummer  Nights  dreame;  &  his  Merchant  of  Venice:  for 
Tragedy  his  Richard  it,  Richard  Hi,  Henry  iv.  King  John,  Titus  Andron- 
icus,  and  his  Romeo  &l  Juliet." 

We  quote  one  paragraph : 

•'Read  your  Shakespeare,  peruse  and  re-peruse  him,  at  your  fire- 
side, in  meditative  silence  apart  from  the  company  of  theatrical  repre- 
sentation; you  will  be  astonished  what  a  treasure  his  pages  disclose  of 
noble  sentiment,  of  acute  observation,  of  instructive  reflections,  of  sage 
advice,  of  practical  truth,  and  moral  wisdom.  Read  the  writings  of  Bacon 
for  their  true  philosophy,  read  and  compare  these  two  great  Elizabethan 
lights,  and  the  more  carefully  and  attentively  you  do  so,  the  more 
firmly  I  am  impressed  with  the  belief  that  but  a  misguided  and  infat- 
uated judgment  can  bring  you  to  any  other  conclusion  relative  to  Shake- 
speare's authorship  than  that  formed,  and  openly  stated  by  Ben  Jonson 
and  Milton,  whose  testimony  ought  to  be  conclusive  against  the  Bacon- 
ian   Theory.^' 

The  author  devotes  considerable  space  to  a  denial  of  the 
claim  to  the  poetic  faculty  in  Bacon,  which  he  illustrates  by 
copious  selections  from  Shakespeare,  and  from  the  well-known 
poetry  of  Bacon,  the  paraphrases  of  the  Psalms.  He  claims 
that  the  writer  of  "Shakespeare"  was  of  Warwickshire  origin, 
giving  instances  of  terms  in  that  dialect  used  in  the  plays  in 
proof.  He  also  gives  a  list  of  ancient  and  modern  authors, 
the  philosophers,  methaphysicians,  etc.,  in  one  column,  and 
the  poets  and  dramatists  in  another,  by  way  of  comparison, 
and  adds : 

"Let  any  one  read,  even  cursorily,  the  works  of  these  philosophers, 
dramatists,  and  poets,  and  I  feel  certain  that  they  will  come  to  this 
conclusion,  that  Bacon  never  wrote  the  plays  and  poems  of  Shakespeare 
Interchange  of,  or  joint  authorship,  is  quite  as  likely  between  Locke 
and  Dryden,  Newton  and  Addison,  Blair  and  Cowper,  etc.,  etc.,  as 
between  Bacon  and  Shakespeare." 


—  45  — 

(Mr.  King  is  a  resident  of  Montreal,  and  is  an  active 
member  of  its  Siiakespeare   Society.) 

Note— Another  Montreal  authority  on  this  subject  is  Ven. 
Archdeacon  William  T.  Leach,  LL.D.,  of  McGill  College 
and  University,  who  delivered  one  of  the  College  lectures  on 
Bacon  and  Shakespeare,  November  13,  1879.  His  studies  of 
these  authors  have  induced  him  to  believe  in  Bacon's  author- 
ship of  the  works,  and  his  lecture  is  a  strong  presentation 
of  that  theory.     It  has  never  been  published. 

85     The     Shakespeare-Bacon     Controversy.       By 

E.    O.  Vaile.     An   article  in  Scribncrs  Monthly, 

April,   1875.     (See  pages  743  to  754.) 

Unc. 

This  is  not  only  a  fair  history  of  the  controversy,  but  a 
very  complete  and  impartial  summary  of  all  the  pomts  at  issue. 
It  will  be  found  interesting  and  useful  to  any  one  desiring 
information  as  to  the  arguments  used  in  the  discussion.  It  sum- 
marizes under  numerical  heads;  Negative  propositions  against 
Shakespeare,  10;  circumstantial  points  in  favor  of  Bacon,  14; 
answers  to  the  foregoing,  favorable  to  Shakespeare,  16. 

Of  the  many  points  made  in  this  article,  we  lay  it  under 
contribution  for  two  only.  The  first  refers  to  such  hints  as 
have  been  gathered  from  contemporary  literature  containing,  as 
is  claimed,  circumstantial  evidence  in  favor  of  the  Baconian 
theory.  In  the  following  extracts  the  author's  com.ments  are 
omitted : 

"In  1592,  Greene  published  a  satiric  poem,  A  Groatsworth  oj 
Witte  bought  with  a  Milliion  of  Repentance.  In  it  he  warns  his 
friends  who  spend  their  wits  in  play-making  to  seek  other  employment, 
"  for  there  is  an  upstart  crow  beautified  with  our  feathers,  that  with  his 
Tyger's  heart,  wrapt  in  a  player's  hyde,  supposes  he  is  as  well  able  to 
bombast  out  a  blank  verse  as  the  best  of  you;  and  being  an  absohUe 
Johannes  Factotum  is,  in  his  own  conceyt,  the  only  Shakescene  in  a 
Countrey." 

Writing  to  his  friend,  Mr.  Tobie  Matthew,  about  that  time  [1607-8], 
Bacon  remarks:  "I  showed  you  some  model,  though  at  that  time 
methoughtyou  were  as  willing  to  hear  Julius  Cassar,  as  Queen  Elizabeth 
commended." 


--46- 

While  Bacon  is  striving  to  gain  a  foothold  with  the  new  sovereign, 
James  I.,  he  writes  to  Master  Davis,  then  going  to  meet  the  King, 
committing  his  interests  at  court  to  Master  Davis's  faithful  care  and 
discretion,  and  closing  the  letter  thus  :  ''  So  desiring  you  to  be  good  to 
concealed  poets,   I    continue." 

To  Mr.  Tobie  Matthew,  Bacon  was  in  the  habit  of  sending  his 
books  as  they  came  out.  In  a  neat  letter,  "To  the  Lord  Viscount  St. 
Albans,"  without  date,  Matthew  acknowledges  the  "  receipt  of  your 
great  and  noble  token  of  favor  of  the  9th  of  April,"  and  appends  the 
following  P.  S.  :  "The  most  prodigious  wit  that  ever  I  knew  of  my 
nation,  and  of  this  side  of  the  sea,  is  of  your  Lordship's  name,  though 
he  be  known  by  another." 

On  an  occasion  Bacon  enclosed  a  "recreation,"  as  he  termed  his 
lighter  literary  productions,  to  Tobie  Matthew.  Matthew,  in  a  reply, 
without  date  or  address,  uses  these  suggestive  words:  "I  will  not 
promise    to   return   you    weight  for  weight,  but   measure    for    measure." 

The  second  point:  We  here  gather  from  Mr.  Vaile's 
article  a  partial  summary  of  the  evidences  of  Shakespeare's 
authorship,  taken  froin  the  writings  of  his  contemporaries  : 

"The  earliest  mention  of  Shakespeare  by  a  contemporary  is  by 
Edmund  Spenser,  in  1591,  in  The  Tearcs  of  the  Muses.  Complaint 
by  Thalia,   lines  205-210. 

And  he,  the  man  whom  Nature  selfe  had  made 

To  mock  herselfe,  and  Truth  10  imitate, 
With  kindly  counter  under  niimic  shade, 

Our  pleasant  Willy,  Ah!  is  dead  of  late; 
With  whom  all  ioy  and   iolly  meriment 

Is  also  deaded,  and  in  dolour  drent. 

In  1592  appeared  Kifide  Hart's  Dreame,  a  poem  of  considerable 
interest  and  merit,  by  Henrie  Chettle.  From  Chettle's  address  to  his 
readers,  we  learn  that  he  was  the  editor  of  Greene's  posthumous  work. 
A  Otoatsivorth  of  Witte,  before  referred  to.  The  quotation  which 
has  been  made  from  this  work,  together  with  other  allusions  in  it, 
seems  to  have  given  offense,  at  least  to  two  authors  of  the  time.  In 
Chettle's  Address,  the  following  passage  occurs,  referring  to  Shake- 
speare, as  all  critics  agree: 

"With  neither  of  them  that  take  offence  was  I  acquainted,  and 
with  one  of  them  I  care  not  if  I  neuer  be;  the  other,  whome  at  that 
time  I  did  not  so  much  spare,  as  since  I  wish  I  had,  for  that  as  I 
haue  moderated  the  heat  of  Huing  writers,  and  might  haue  vsed  my 
owne  discretion  (especially  in  such  a  case)  the  author  being  dead,  that 
I  did  not,  I  am  as  sorry,  as  if  the  originall  fault  had  beene  my  fault, 
because  myselfe  haue  scene  his  demeanor  no  lesse  ciuill  than  he  exclent 


—  47  — 

in  the  qualitie  he  professes;  besides,  diuers  of  worship  haue  reported 
his  vprightness  of  dealing,  which  argues  his  honesty,  and  his  facetious 
grace  in  writting  that  approoues  his  art." — Percy  Society  Publications, 
vol.  V. 

John  Webster,  in  the  preface  to  his  play,  The  IVhite  Devil— 1G12 — 
speaks  thus: 

"Detraction  is  the  sworne  friend  to  ignorance;  for  mine  owne  part, 
I  haue  euer  truly  cherisht  my  good  opinion  of  other  men's  worthy 
labours,  especially  of  that  full  and  haightned  style  of  maister  Chapman, 
*  *  *  and  lastly  (without  wrong  last  to  be  named),  the  right  happy 
and  copious  industry  of  m.  Shake-speare,  m.  Decker,  and  m.  Heywood." 
—John    IVebstet^s    Works.     London:     1857,  vol.  ii. 

Ben  Jonson's  eulogy  upon  Shakespeare,  first  published  in  the 
folio  of  1623,  is  well  known.  In  his  prose,  the  same  author  makes 
a  long  and  affectionate  reference  to  the  friend  of  his  youth.  The  fol- 
lowing is  a  part:  *  *  »  "For  I  loved  the  man,  and  do  honour  his 
memory,  on  this  side  idolatry,  as  much  as  any.  He  was  indeed  honest 
and  of  an  open  and  free  nature;  had  an  excellent  phantasy,  brave 
notions,  and  gentle  expressions,  wherein  he  flowed  with  that  facility, 
that  sometimes  it  was  necessary  that  he  should  be  stopped." — Discov- 
eries.    Probably  written  in  1636. 

A  few  more  quotations,  without  doubt  correct,  are  added,  as  given 
in  Allibone's  Dictionary  of  Authors.     Art.  Shakespeare. 

"As  the  soule  of  Euphorbus  was  thought  to  line  in  Pythagoi-as  \  so 
the  sweete  wittie  soule  of  Otiid  Imes  \n  mellifluous  hony-tongued  5/«a/(v- 
spcare^  witnes  his  Venus  and  Adonis,  his  Lucrece,  his  sugred  Sonnets 
among  his  priuate  friends.     *     *     *     « 

As  Epius  Slolo  said,  the  Muses  would  speak  with  Plautits  tongue, 
if  they  would  speak  Latin  ;  so  I  say  the  Muses  would  speak  with 
Shakespeare's  fine  filed  phrase,  if  they  would  speak  English." — Francis 
Meres,   Wit's    Treasury,   \  :^c)8. 

And  Shakespeare,  thou  whose  hony-flowing  vaioe 

(Pleasing  the  world)   thy  praises  doth   obtaine 
Whose    Venus  and  whose  Lucrece  (sweste  and  chaste; 
Thy  name  in  fame's  immortal  booke  have  plac't, 
Live  ever  you  ;  at  least,  in  fame  live  ever  ! 
Well  may  the  bodye  die,  but  fame  dies   never. 
— Richard  Bamefeild,   Poems  in  Divers  Humors,  1598. 

To  OUR  English  Terence,  Mr.  William  Shake-spere. 

Some  say,  good  Will,   which  I  in  sport  do  sing, 

Hadst  thou  not  plaid  some  Kindly  parts  in  sport. 

Thou  hadst  been  a  companion  for  a  King, 
And  beene  King  among  the  meaner  sort. 
— Sir  John  Davies  in  his   Scourge  0/  Folly,  1611-14. 


-48- 
Mr.   Vaile  concludes : 

"  So  far  as  this  discussion  attempts  an  explanation  of  the  origin  or 
existence  of  genius,  it  is  certainly  quite  futile;  ai  d  quite  as  unworthy 
is  the  attempt  to  adjust  the  mere  honor  of  authorship  between  two 
individuals  simply.  But  the  question  is  by  no  means  an  unimportant 
one,  whether  genius  has  worked  in  this  instance,  by  the  use  of  means 
necessary  to  ordinary  mortals,  or  whether  its  inspiration  has  been  imme- 
diate and  complete." 

(Mr.  Vaile  is  a  resident  of  Oak  Park,  Chicago,  where  he 
is  connected  with  several  educational    publications.) 

A  concise  statement  of  the  more  important  contemporary- 
allusions  to  Shakespeare,  will  be  found  in  Mr.  F.  G.  Fleay's 
Shakespeare  Manual,  pages  12-21. 

86     Bacon's  Psalms.     In  the  Old  Cabinet,  Scrihners 

Monthly,  April,  1875.     (See  pages  758-59.) 

Pro-SJi. 

This  contains  extracts  from  Bacon's  acknowledged  verses — 
the  seven  versified  psalms — by  way  of  comparison  with  the 
poetry  of  Shakespeare.  The  psalms  paraphrased  are  i,  xii,  xc, 
CIV,  cxxvi,  cxxxvii,  and  cxlix. 

"According  to  the  editors  of  Bacon's  Works  (Messrs.  Spedding,  Ellis, 
and  Heath),  'the  only  verses  of  Bacon's  making  that  have  come  down 
to  us,  and  probably,  with  one  or  two  slight  exceptions,  the  only  verses 
he  ever  attempted,'  were  'the  translation  of  certain  Psalms  into  English 
verse.'  He  wrote  also  a  sonnet,  meant,  say  the  editors,  'in  some  way 
or  other  to  assist  in  sweetening  the  Queen's  temper  toward  the  Earl  of 
Essex;  and  it  has  either  not  been  preserved  at  all,  or  not  so  as  to  be 
identified.'  Two  other  poems  have  been  ascribed  to  him.  although  it 
is  not  absolutely  certain  that  he  wrote  them.  Really,  then,  the  seven 
versified  Psalms  constitute  all  of  Bacon's  poetry  which  may  be  said  to 
be  in  evidence  on  the  point  of  his  poetic  ability.  *  *  *  *  For  the 
curiosity  of  the  thing,  we  transcribe  the  opening  stanzas  of  Bacon's 
translation  of  Psalm  cxxxvii : 

When  as  we  sat,  all  sad  and  desolate. 
By  Babylon  upon  the  river's  side, 
Eas'd  from  the  tasks  which  in  our  captive  state 
We  were  enforced  daily  to  abide, 

Our  harps  we  had  brought  with  us  to  the  field, 
Some  solace  to  our  heavy  souls  to  yield. 


—  49  — 

But  soon  we  fo\ind  we  fail'd  of  our  account, 

For  when  our  minds  sunie  freedom  did  obtain. 
Straightways  the  memory  of  Sion  Mount 

Did  cause  afresh  our  wounds  to  bleed  again; 

So  that  with  present  griefs,  and   future  fears, 
Our  eyes  burst  forth  into  a  stream  of  tears. 

As  for  our  harps,  since  sorrow  struck  them  dumb, 

We  hangd  them  on   the  willow-trees  were  near; 
Yet  did  our  cruel  masters  to  us  come. 

Asking  of  us  some  Hebrew  songs  to  hear; 
Taunting  us  rather  in  our  misery, 
Than  much  delighting  in  our  melody.  " 

87  "  Shakespeare's  Centurie  of  Prayse."  By  Prof. 
Hiram  Corson.  In  the  Cornell  Review  (Cornell 
University  Literary  Magazine),  Ithaca,  New  York, 
for  May,   1875.      ^^  pages. 

Pro-Sh. 

A  review  of  Dr.  Ingleby's  book,  from  the  standpoint  of 
its  value  in  proving  the  Shakespearian    authorship. 

"  And  when  we  look  at  the  slim  arguments  that  have  been  so 
painstakingly  concocted  against  Shakespeare's  claims,  and  in  favor  of 
Lord  Bacon's,  we  are  forced  to  attribute  the  remarkable  dispute  to  one 
of  two  causes,  or  to  them  both,  for  they  are  intimately,  if  not  insep- 
arably,  allied  : 

1,  The  iconoclastic  tendency  of  the  age;  and, 

2.  The  predominant  analytic  character  of  the  thought  of  the  age." 

88  The  Bacon-Shakespeare  Theory.  By  E.  C.  T. 
[Rev.  Edward  C.  Towne].  Two  articles  in  the 
Christian  Register,  Boston,  for  May  22,  and  29, 
1875.     li  columns  each. 

Pro-Sh. 

The  first  article  treats  of  Delia  Bacon,  her  monomania, 
and  the  causes  which  may  have  led  to  it ;  the  second  is  a 
critical  review  of  Judge  Holmes. 

(The  author  resides  at  Westboro',  Mass.  Several  other 
papers  by  him  will  be  found  noted  hereafter.) 

89  Holmes's  Authorship  of  Shakespeare.  Notice 
in  the    Saturday   Review,  London,  July    24,    1875. 

Pro-Sh. 


—  50  — 

90  Holmes's  Authorship  of  Shakespeare.      In  the 

Civil  Service  Review^  August   7,   1875. 

Pro-Sh. 

91  Shakespeare  and  Bacon.  By  G.  S.  [George 
Stronach,  M.  a.]  In  the  Hornet,  London, 
August  II,  1875. 

a — Bacon  and  Shakespeare,  by  Scotus,  in  the  same, 
August  18,   1875. 

Anti-Sh. 

The  paper  in  the  Hoi-net  is  a  concise  statement  of  the  Bacon- 
ian argument. 

(Mr.  Stronach  is  connected  with  the  Advocates'  Library, 
Edinburgh.  It  is  understood  that  he  has  in  preparation  a 
treatise  sustaining  the  Baconian  theory,  which  will  be  pub- 
lished at  some  future  time.) 

92  Bacon  and  Shakespeare.  A  series  of  communi- 
cations in  the  Notes  and  ^leries  column  of  the 
Newcastle  (England)  Weekly  Chronicle,  in  1875, 
under  the  dates  following  :  August  28  ;  September 
4,   II,   18,  and  25;    October  2,  9,   16,  23,  and   30; 

and  November  6,   13,  and  20. 

Unc. 

93  The  Authorship  of  Shakespeare.  By  Na- 
thaniel Holmes,  with  an  Appendix  of  Addi- 
tional Matters,  including  a  notice  of  the  re- 
cently discovered  Northumberland  MSS.,  with  an 
introduction.     Edition  of  1876.     (Appendix,   pages 

603  to  696.) 

Anti-Sh. 

As  this  was  printed  ten  years  later  than  the  edition  we 
have  first  titled  (1866),  and  contains  new  matter,  it  is  inserted 
here  to  preserve  the  chronological  order. 

In  the  introduction  Judge  Holmes  gives  a  general  review 
of  the  argument,  and  introduces  a  correspondence  between  Mr. 
James  Spedding,  the  biographer  of  Bacon,  and  himself  Also, 
between  Mr.  Spedding  and  Mr.   W.    H.  Smith. 


—  51  — 

The  aj)pendix,  aside  from  the  notices  of  the  Northum- 
berland MSS.,  is  chiefly  made  ui)  of  cumulative  evidence  on 
the  topics  of  the  original  edition.  We  give  one  passage  from 
the    introduction: 

''  I  have  not  yet  discovered  one  authentic  fact  which  would  necessi- 
tate the  inference  that  William  Shakespeare  was  the  author  of  this 
poetry.  The  further  facts  of  a  historical  kind  now  presented,  while 
strongly  pointing  to  Francis  Bacon  as  the  author,  are  not  at  all  con- 
clusive. Indeed,  the  extrinsic  circumstances  all  together,  though  power- 
fully suggestive  and  convincing,  can  not  be  said  to  be  absolutely  conclu- 
sive of  the  matter.  The  strongest  evidence  lies  in  the  comparison  of  the 
writings,  and  the  demonstration  (as  I  conceive)  must  rest  at  last,  and 
chiefly,  upon  the  essential  identity,  individuality,  and  oneness  of  the 
writer  of  this  poetry  and  of  Bacon's  works,  as  exhibited  in  a  thorough 
critical  comparison  of  the  writings  themselves.  But,  of  course,  where 
the  evidence  fails  to  convince,  or  carries  no  weight  at  all,  or  even 
seems  to  prove  a  difiference  rather  than  an  identity,  there  is  an  end 
of  the  argument.  Nevertheless,  it  is  my  belief  that  any  one  who  will 
take  the  trouble  to  make  that  comparison,  in  an  adequate  manner, 
will  not  fail  to  be  convinced  of  that  identity." 

In  Mr.  Spedding's  letter,  occupying  six  closely-printed  pages, 
he  says : 

"  If  Shakespeare  had  no  knowledge  as  a  scholar  or  man  of  science, 
neither  do  the  works  attributed  to  him  show  traces  of  trained  scholar- 
ship or  scientific  education.  Given  the  faculties  (which  nature  bestows 
as  freely  upon  the  poor  as  upon  the  rich),  you  will  find  that  all  the 
acquired  knowledge,  art,  and  dexterity  which  the  Skakespearian  plays 
imply,  was  easily  attainable  by  a  man  who  was  laboring  in  his  voca- 
tion, and  had  nothing  else  to  do." 

"  Among  the  parallelisms  which  you  have  collected  with  such  industry 
to  prove  the  identity  of  the  two  writers,  I  have  not  observed  one  in 
which  I  should  not  myself  have  inferred  from  the  difference  in  style  a 
difference  of  hand.  Great  writers,  especially  being  contemporary,  have 
many  features  in  common ;  but  if  they  are  really  great  writers,  they 
write  naturally,  and  nature  is  always  individual.  I  doubt  if  there  are 
five  lines  together  to  be  found  in  Bacon  which  could  be  mistaken  for 
Shakespeare,  or  five  lines  in  Shakespeare  which  could  be  mistaken  for 
Bacon,  by  one  wlio  was  familiar  with  the  several  styles  and  practiced 
in  such   observation." 

We  insert  here  an  extract  from  a  review  of  Judge  Holmes's 
book  in  the  AthencBuni,  London,  of  February  23,  1867,  prob- 
ably by  the  Editor,  Mr.  William    Hepworth  Dixon  : 


_   52  — 

"  Mr.  Nathaniel  Holmes  is  an  American  gentleman,  residing  in  St. 
Louis,  a  long  way  from  the  manuscript  papers,  which  can  alone  throw 
any  new  light  upon  the  subject.  He  has  mastered  Miss  Delia  Bacon's 
book;  also  the  new  edition  of  Lord  Bacon's  works,  and  The  Story  of 
Lord  Bacon's  Life,  and  with  the  help  of  a  subtle  intellect,  he  has  so 
arranged  the  mass  of  evidence  tending  to  separate  two  most  important 
lives  in  English  history,  as  to  aid  in  confusing  the  perception  of  many 
persons.  For  our  own  part,  we  do  not  care  to  enter  once  again  into 
the  reasons  which  induced  us  to  reject,  in  mass  and  detail,  all  the  con- 
jectures offered  in  support  of  Bacon's  authorship  of  Hamlet  and  Mac- 
beth. When  we  had  Miss  Bacon's  works  before  us  we  gave  our  reasons 
fully;  and  as  nothing  new  has  been  found  in  way  of  buttress  to  her 
argument,  we  may  safely  let  the  discussion  lapse,  which  we  do  in  thorough 
respect  for  Mr.  Holmes,  who,  distant  student  though  he  be  of  English 
literary  history,  is  well  aware  of  what  is  going  on  in  this  country. 
He  takes  a  perfectly  noble  and  impartial  view  of  Bacon's  conduct,  both 
in  his  relations  to  Essex  and  the  administration  of  justice.  But  we 
can  not  go  forward  with  him  in  his  theory  of  Bacon  being  the  secret 
author  of  Shakespeare's  plays." 


94 


L'Ideale  in  Letteratura.  Letture  fatte  avanti 
al  Regio  Istituto  Lombardo,  dal  membro  effettivo, 
Dott.  Antonio  Buccellati,  Milano,  1876.  Pamph- 
let, pp.  144.  (The  Ideal  IN  Literature.  Lectures 
delivered  before  the  Royal  Lombard  Institute,  by 
the  acting  member,  Dr.  Antonio  Buccellati.) 

tJnc, 

A  general  reference  to  the  subject  on  pages  74-77-  It 
incUides  in  a  note  an  extract  from  a  paper  in  the  MetJioriale 
Diplomatique,  the  date  of  which  is  not  given. 

95     Shakespeare  from  an  American  Point  of  View  ; 

including  an  inquiry  as  to  his  religious   faith,   and 

his  knowledge  of  law,  with    the    Baconian  theory 

considered,     B}-  George  Wilkes.     New  York  :  D. 

Appleton    &   Co.,    1877,    8vo.    pp.    471.       Second 

edition,     1881. 

Pro-Sh. 

It  will  be  seen  from  the  title  of  Mr.  Wilkes's  book,  that 
it  is  quite  comprehensive — and  his  argument  that  the  writer 
of  the  plays    was  a  Catholic,  and  was  not   a  trained   lawyer, 


—  53  — 

are  either  of  them  fatal,  in  his  opinion,  to  the  Baconian 
theory.  He  devotes  several  chapters,  by  way  of  illustration,  to 
a  comparison  of  the  life,  genius,  and  characteristics  of  Sliake- 
speare  and  Bacon.  He  differs  from  Lord  Campbell  in  his 
estimate  of  the  "  Legal  Acquirements  of  Shakespeare,"  and 
takes  up  "The  Testimony  of  the  Plays"  (pages  81-419), 
reviewing  them,  as  to  the  question  of  authorship,  from  both 
the  religious  and  legal  point  of  view.     As  to  the  latter,  he  says : 

-s  *  sc-  ««The  author  of  the  Shakespeare  plays  did  not  possess 
any  great  knowledge  of  the  law  ;  or,  if  he  did,  his  dramatic  writings 
do  not  show  it.  He  exhibits,  without  doubt,  a  familiarity  in  law 
expressions,  and  applies  them  with  a  precision  and  a  happiness  of  appli- 
cation in  all  cases,  which  apparently  carries  the  idea  that  he  may  have 
served  in  an  attorney's  office;  but  not  one  of  them,  nor  do  all  of  them 
together,  mark  anything  higher  than  mere  general  principles  and  forms 
of  practice,  or  such  surface  clack  and  knowledge  as  were  within  the 
mental  reach  of  any  clever  scrivener  or  conveyancer's  clerk.  On 
the  contrary,  whenever  Shakespeare  steps  beyond  the  surface  compre- 
hension of  the  solicitor's  phraseology,  and  attempts  to  deal  with  the 
spirit  and  philosophy  of  law,  he  makes  a  lamentable  failure.  The  Mer- 
chant of  Venice,  Comedy  of  Errors,  Wititer's  Tale,  and  Measure  for  Meas- 
U7e,  contain  conspicuous  proofs  of  this  deficiency."     *     *     « 

An  extract  from  the  recapitulation: 

"  We  may  be  told,  at  this  stage,  that  such  an  extent  of  search  and 
demonstration  as  I  have  devoted  to  these  Baconian  points  is  not  neces- 
sary to  dispose  of  a  bubble  which  has  never  floated  among  the  public 
with  any  amount  of  success;  and  we  may  be  flippantly  assured  that 
the  inexorable  reasoning  faculty  of  Time  alone,  would,  of  itself,  dispel 
the  fallacy;  but  such  contemptuous  treatment  is  not  adequate  to  the 
treatment  of  a  theory  which  has  received  the  support  of  such  minds  as 
that  of  Lord  Palmerston,  and  such  scholars  and  critics  as  Judge  Holmes 
and  General  B.  F,  Butler  in  America.  Bubbles  thus  patronized  must 
be  entirely  exploded,  or  they  will  be  sure  to  reappear  whenever  the 
world  has  a  sick  or  idle  hour,  and  delusions  find  their  opportunity  to 
strike.  Moreover,  nothing  is  lost  by  our  inquiries,  after  all,  beyond  a 
little  time;  and  I  doubt  not  all  true  admirers  of  our  poet  will  agree 
that  one  new  ray  of  light  which  may  thus  be  thrown  upon  the 
character  and  history  of  Shakespeare,  will  justify  octavos  of  discussion." 

The  author  embodies  in  his  book  the  Euphonic  or  Musical 
Test,  by  Prof.  Taverner,  which  is  the  subject  of  a  separate 
title.     Of  this  essay,  Mr.  Wilkes  says : 


-  54  — 

"To  the  multitude,  its  proofs  may  appear  less  potent  than  some 
others  I  have  advanced,  but  with  scholars  and  rhetorical  experts,  the 
Euphonic  test  will  probably  be  more  fatal  to  the  Baconian  theory  than 
any  other." 

(The  author  is  well  known  as  the  former  editor  of  Wilkes's 
Spirit  of  the   Times.) 

96  The  Musical  or  Euphonic  Test.  The  respective 
styles  of  Shakespeare  and  Bacon,  judged  by  the 
laws  of  Elocutionary  Analysis,  and  Melody  of 
Speech.      By  Prof.  J.  W.  Taverner.        1877. 

Pro-Sk. 

This  essay  is  included  in  Mr.  Wilkes's  book.  See  pages 
424  to  461. 

"  As  the  handwriting  of  one  man  among  thousands  can  be  deter- 
mined by  experts,  so  no  lengthy  examples  of  style— the  expression  and 
language  of  any  two  authors  of  note,  can  fail  to  indicate  the  individual 
mind  to  which  one  or  the  other  belongs.  *  *  *  But  how  much 
more  comprehensive  are  the  combinations  that  constitute  the  style,  the 
language,  the  adornments,  the  illustrations,  the  figurative  expression,  the 
place  of  the  emphasis,  the  form  of  the  phrases,  the  source  of  the  met- 
aphors, the  character  of  the  similes;  but  our  enumeration  would  become 
too  long;  then,  finally,  that  emanation  of  the  rhythm  of  the  breathing, 
and  of  the  pulse,  and  the  endowments  of  the  ear,  that  marshals  all 
those  forms  and  phrases  in  a  certain  order  with  reference  to  melody 
and  cadence." 

"The  outcome  of  the  life-long  process  to  which  we  have  referred, 
by  which  the  style  of  a  writer  is  formed — that  feature  of  it  to  which 
our  treatment  of  this  subject,  for  the  present,  relates — is  the  most  sub- 
tie-  for  we  have  to  investigate  that  of  which  the  writer  himself  was, 
possibly,  the  most  unconscious — that  which,  like  his  gait,  or  some  other 
habit,  has,  perhaps,  received  no  positive  attention  whatever.  Yet,  it  may 
be  held  that  nothing  becomes  more  rigid  and  fixed  than  the  mould  and 
matrix  in  which  his  thoughts  are  ultimately  fashioned  and  expressed. 
The  modes  of  thinking  would,  in  some  instances,  have  to  be  identical 
to  produce  identical  melodies  of  speech. 

"In  Shakespeare's  prose  we  shall  find  that  all  this  is  marvelously 
free  and  varied,  and  that  his  blank  verse  conforms  strictly  to  a  certain 
set  of  chimes.     In  Bacon,  besides  Latin  forms,  we  shall  not  lack  exam- 


-  55  — 

pies  of  a  certain  sort  of  duplicates  and  triplicates,  antithetic  parallel- 
isms, and  harmonic  or  alternate  phrases  (and,  to  use  a  strong  Bacon- 
ianism),  and  the  like.'''' 

.$*«*******  * 
"  Bacon,  himself,  gives  testimony  to  the  weight  and  value  of  such 
evidence,  for  he,  himself,  relates  that  Queen  Elizabeth,  being  incensed 
with  a  certain  book  [Dr.  Hayward's],  dedicated  to  my  Lord  of  Essex, 
expressed  an  opinion  that  there  was  treason  in  it,  and  would  not  be 
persuaded  that  it  was  his  writing  whose  name  was  to  it;  but  that  it 
had  some  more  mischievous  author,  and  said,  with  great  indignation, 
that  she  would  have  him  racked  to  produce  his  author.  'I  replied,' 
says  Bacon,  '  Nay,  Madam,  he  is  a  doctor ;  never  rack  his  person,  but 
rack  his  style;  let  him  have  pen,  ink,  and  paper,  and  help  of  books, 
and  be  enjoined  to  continue  the  story  where  it  breaketh  off,  and  I 
will  undertake,  by  collating  the  styles,  to  judge  whether  he  were  the 
author  or  no.'  " 

Prof.  Taverner  proceeds  to  illustrate  his  position  by  a 
comparison  of  extracts  from  the  essays  and   the  plays. 

"  It  would  be  as  easy  to  suppose,  by  these  evidences,  Bacon  and 
Shelley  to  have  been  one  and  the  same  author,  as  that  these  several 
specimens  of  Shakespeare  and  of  Bacon  could  proceed  from  one  and 
the  same  mind." 

97  The  Leopold  Shakespeare.  Edited  by  F.  J. 
FuRNivALL.     (See  Notes,  p.  cxxiv,  edition  1877.) 

Pro-Sh. 

••  I  doubt  whether  any  such  idiotic  suggestion  as  this  authorship  of 
Shakespeare's  works  by  Bacon  has  ever  been  made  before,  or  will  ever 
be  made  again,  with  regard  to  either  Bacon  or  Shakespeare.  The  tom- 
foolery of  it  is  infinite." 

This  note  is  expanded  in  the  edition  of  1882. 

98  Is  Sir  Walter  Raleigh  the  Author  of  Shake- 
speare's Plays  and  Sonnets?  By  George  S. 
Caldwell.       Melbourne,   Australia:     Stillwell    & 

Knight,     1877.      Pamphlet,  pp.  32. 

Anti-Sh. 

Mr.  Caldwell  answers  his  query  in  the  affirmative.  He 
is  now  engaged  upon  a  new  book  in  development  of  his 
theory.  We  give  below  an  extract  from  a  letter  received  from 
him  referring  to  his  new  work : 


-56- 

"The  greater  portion  of  the  book  will  be  taken  up  by  extracts 
from  the  History  of  tlie  World,  and  from  the  plays.  These  extracts 
will  show  so  complete  an  identification  of  opinions,  principles,  and  pecu- 
liarities of  thought  and  expression,  as  will,  I  am  sanguine,  carry  con- 
viction to  the  minds  of  every  interested  reader,  that  the  plays  must 
have  been  written  by  Raleigh.  *  *  *  •■•'  After  five  years'  considera- 
tion, I  now  say  that  the  materials  in  my  possession  are  sufficient  to 
finally  settle  the  controversy." 

(Mr.  Caldwell  is  a  resident  of  Melbourne,  and  understood 
to  be  in  the  British  Postal  Service.) 


99 


The  Authorship  of  the  Works  Attributed  to 
Shakespeare.  (Chapter  IV,  part  I,  pages  38  to 
72.)  In  Shakesfeare:  The  Man  and  the  Book, 
By  C.  M.  Ingleby,  M.A.,  LL.D.     London:   1877. 

Pro-Sh. 

This  paper  was  read  before  the  Royal  Society  of  Litera- 
ture, January  22,  1868.     See  Transactions,  Vol.  ix,  new  series. 

"The  critic  has  the  same  interest  in  the  works  of  Miss  Delia  Bacon, 
Mr.  W.  H.  Smith,  and  Judge  Holmes,  as  the  physician  has  in  morbid 
anatomy.  He  reads  them,  not  so  much  for  the  light  which  they  throw 
on  the  question  of  authorship,  as  for  their  interest  as  examples  of  wrong- 
headedness.  It  is  not  at  all  a  matter  of  moment  whether  Bacon, 
Raleigh,  or  another  be  the  favorite  on  whom  the  works  are  fathered, 
but  it  is  instructive  to  discover  by  what  plausible  process  the  positive 
evidences  of  Shakespeare's  authorship  (scanty  as  they  are)  are  put  out  of 
court.  As  to  Bacon,  as  first  favorite,  I  suppose  any  one  conversant 
with  the  life  and  authentic  works  of  that  powerful  but  unamiable  char- 
acter, must  agree  with  Mr.  Spedding's  judgment,  that  unless  he  be 
the  author  of  "Shakespeare,"  neither  his  life  or  his  writings  give  us 
any  assurance  that  he  could  excel  as  a  dramatic  poet.  Of  all  men  who 
have  left  their  impress  on  the  reign  of  the  first  maiden  Queen,  not  one 
can  be  found  who  was  so  deficient  in  human  sympathies  as  Lord  Bacon. 
As  for  such  a  man  portraying  a  woman  in  her  natural  simplicity, 
purity,  and  grace;  as  to  his  imagining  and  bodying  forth  in  natural 
speech  and  action,  such  exquisite  creations  as  Miranda,  Perdita,  Cor- 
delia, Desdemona,  Marina— the  supposition  is  the  height  of  absurdity. 
What,  as  it  seems  to  me,  has  led  astray  the  few  writers  who  have  set 
up  a  claim  for  Lord  Bacon,  is  his  admirable  gift  of  language,  scarcely 
inferior  to  Shakespeare  himself.  This  almost  unique  endowment  caused 
Bacon  to  manifest  a  kind  of  likeness  to  Shakespeare  in  matters  into  which 


—  57  — 

the  sympathies  of  the  man  and  the  training  of  the  dramatic  poet  do  not 
enter.  Hence  it  is  easy  to  cull  from  the  works  of  these  two  great  masters 
a  considerable  number  of  curious  parallels.  I  have  looked  over  the  col- 
lections of  Messrs.  W.  H.  Smith  and  Holmes,  and  I  must  confess  I  am 
astonished;  but  my  astonishment  has  not  been  provoked  by  the  quantity 
or  closeness  of  the  resemblances  adduced,  but  by  the  spectacle  of  edu- 
cated men  attempting  to  found  such  an  edifice  on  such   a   foundation." 

icx)     Notes  and  Queries.     London.     Fifth    Series. 

a — From  Jabez   [Dr.    Ingleby],   vii,  55,  January 

20,   1877. 

h — From  R.  P.  Hampton  Roberts,  \^i,  234,    March 

24,  1877. 

Unc. 

loi  Shakespeare  from  an  American  Point  of  View. 
A  review  of  Wilkes's  book  in  the  Catholic  Worlds 
New  York,  for  June,   1877.     (Pages  422-428.) 

Unc. 

This  review  refers  only  slightly  to  the  authorship,  the 
question  mainly  discussed  being  Mr.  Wilkes's  views  regarding 
the  Catholicism  of  Shakespeare. 

102     The    Political    Purpose    of   the   Renascence 

Drama.    The  Key  to  the  Argument.     By  Cerimon 

[Dr.  William  Thomson],     Melbourne,  Sidney  and 

Adelaide:      George   Robertson,    1878.       Pamphlet, 

8vo.  pp.  57. 

Anti-Sh. 

The  first  of  the  several  pamphlets  and  books  by  Dr.  Thom- 
son, which  will  be  found  distributed  through  this  list.  A  fair 
illustration  of  his  manner  of  treating  the  plays — as  to  the 
Political  Purpose  —  may  be  found  in  the  paragraph  following, 
relating  to  Hamlet ; 

"When  the  King  in  the  play  asks  if  there  is  'no  offence  in't,'  he 
but  repeats  Queen  Elizabeth's  query,  put,  in  her  palace,  about  another 
treasonable  entertainment,  of  which  Bacon  had,  at  that  very  time,  to 
allay  her  well-grounded   suspicions.      She    feared   the   disloyalty   of  one 


-58- 

whom  he  endeavored  to  reconcile  and  become  her  loyal  servant.  '  She 
had  good  opinion  that  there  was  treason  in  it.'  Readers  of  history 
know  the  allusion." 

The  allusion,  of  course,  is  to  the  affair  of  the  Essex  treason 
— Dr.  Hayward's  book,  the  "  First  Yeare  of  King  Henry  the 
Fourth" — and  the  play  of  Richard  II.  For  this,  see  Holmes, 
p.  96,  97,  and  135;  in  appendix,  Spedding's  letter  to  Holmes, 
p.   617;  Holmes  to  Spedding,  p.  619. 

(Dr.  William  Thomson,  at  the  time  these  works  were 
written,  was  a  practicing  physician  at  Melbourne,  Australia. 
He  was  evidently  a  fine  scholar,  and  an  intense  Baconian, 
He  died  during  the  past  year,  at  the  age  of  63.  We  quote 
from  a  private  letter  from  Melbourne:  "The  Baconian 
theory  of  Shakespeare's  writings  was  an  intense  hobby  with 
him,  and  even  the  day  before  he  died,  he  sent  for  some  books 
on  the  subject — the  ruling  passion  strong  in  death.  «  *  * 
He  was  ever  ready  to  put  on  the  literary  war-paint,  and  raised 
up  numerous  enemies  thereby.") 

103     Shakespeare.      Was   he   a    Myth?   or,    What 

DID  HE  Write?     By  Charles  Cockbill  Cattell. 

London:  Charles  Watts,  n.  d.   [1878].      Pamphlet, 

i2mo.  pp.  i6. 

Pro-Sh. 

The  first  of  a  series  of  pamphlets,  which  will  be  found 
cited  hereafter,  all  combating  the  Baconian  theory.  We  extract 
one  paragraph  : 

"A  curious  point  in  history  is  that,  while  it  devotes  much  space  to 
describe  all  the  details  about  persons  who  would  now  be  forgotten  but 
for  Shakespeare,  it  leaves  him  unnoticed.  So  far  as  I  have  read.  Bacon, 
who  is  supposed  to  have  known  nearly  every  thing  of  his  age,  does  not 
mention  Shakespeare.  Sir  Henry  Wotton,  to  whom  we  are  so  much 
indebted,  does  not  name  him,  although  he  survived  Shakespeare  twenty 
years.  It  is  only  common  fairness  to  state  that  Sir  Henry  also  omits 
to  mention  Spenser,  Ben  Jonson,  Marlowe,  Massinger,  Beaumont  and 
many  others;  so  that  Shakespeare  is  only  one  among  the  many 'myths' 
of  that  generation,  if  non-mention  by  Sir  Henry  proves  that.  Emer- 
son's explanation  of  that  is  given  in  his  own  inimitable  style:  'No  one 
suspected  he  [Shakespeare]  was  the  poet  of  the    human    race.     *     *     * 


—  59  — 

Their  genius  failed  them  to  find  out  the  best  head  in  the  universe.  Our 
poet's  mask  was  impenetrable;  you  can  not  see  the  mountain  near.' 
Emerson  further  says :  '  For  executive  faculty,  for  creation,  Shake.speare 
is  unique.  No  man  can  imagine  it  better.  *  *  *  He  clothes  the 
creatures  of  his  legend  with  form  and  sentiment,  as  if  they  were  people 
who  lived  under  his  roof,'  " 

104  Article  "Shakespeare."  In  the  Diclionary  of 
Authors.  By  S.  Austin  Allibone.  Philadelphia  : 
1878. 

Pro-Sh. 

"Shakespeare,  the  most  Illustrious  of  the  Sons  of  Men. — We 
have  earned  the  right,  by  hard  labour,  to  assert  that  there  is  not  in  the 
XI 00  pages  of  Delia  Bacon  and  Judge  Holmes,  the  shadow  of  the  shade 
of  an  argument  to  support  their  wild  and  most  absurd  hypothesis. 
Bacon  was  as  little  capable  of  writing  'Shakespeare's  Plays'  as  any 
other  man." 

'«  Within  that  circle,  none  durst  walk  but  he." 

105  Who  Wrote  Shakespeare?  In  an  Appendix  to 
Studies  on  the  Text  of  Shakespeare.  By  John 
Bulloch.  London  and  Aberdeen:  1878,  8vo. 
(See  pages  317-322.) 

Unc. 

Mainly  a  review  of  the  question,  without  an  expression  of 
opinion. 

106  A  Chapter  of  Comparat^t:  Chronology.  1561- 
1626.  Francis  Bacon  and  William  Shakespeare. 
By  John  Bulloch.  In  an  Appendix  to  Studies 
on  the  Text  of  Shakespeare.  London  and  Aber- 
deen:   1878,  8vo.     (See  pages  323-328.) 

Unc. 

A    chronological   history    of  the    main  facts    in    the    lives 

of  Bacon   and    Shakespeare,  the    dates  of  the  appearance   of 

their  works,    etc.     It   is   very   valuable   in  an   examination  of 
the  historical  side  of  the  subject. 


—  6o  — 

107  SHyVKESPEARE    ET  LA   ThEORIE    BaCONIENNE.     Par 

M.  Berard  Varagnac.    In  the  Journal  des  Dcbats, 

Paris,  Tune  21,   1878.     4  columns. 

^  Pro-Sh. 

Nominally  a  review  of  Wilkes.  The  writer,  however,  goes 
into  the  subject  generally.  His  conclusions  are  obvious,  even 
to  one  who  is  not  proficient  in  the  French  language,  from  his 
final  remark  : 

"  Cest  potirquoi  Fon  nous  pcrmettra  de  penser  que  la  iheorie  Baconienne 
n'est  autre  chose  que  ce  qu'ils  appellent  la-bas  cTun  mot  expressif  ?ton  moins 
mite  que  la  chose  dans  la patrie  de  Barnum — un  humbug." 

108  Shakespeare  and  the  Baconian  Theory.  By 
M.  Berard  Varagnac.    In  the  American  Register, 

Paris,  July  6,   1878.     2\  columns. 

Pro-Sh. 

A  translation  of  the  article  in  the  Journal  des  Debats, 
above.     (See  Title  107.) 

109  Un  Proces  Litteraire  :  Bacon  contre  Shake- 
speare !  By  M.  J.  Villemain.  In  L' Instruction 
Publique:  Revue  des  Lettres,  Science  et  Arts, 
Paris.  Two  articles,  August  31  and  September  7, 
1878.       (A    Literary    Suit:       Bacon     against 

Shakespeare.) 

Anti-S/i. 

"To  sum  it  all  up,  we  may  conclude  thus:  everything  which  there 
is  good  in  Shakespeare's  dramas  comes  from  Bacon;  everything  which 
there  is  \>ad  in   Bacon's  dramas  comes   from  Shakespeare." 

iio  Notice  in  De  Ncderlandsche  Spectator.  The 
Hague,  Holland,  October  12,  1878. 

Unc. 

Unimportant — simply  a  short  notice,  occasioned  by  the 
French  articles  of  M.  Varagnac  and  M.  Villemain,  which  will 
be  found  in  the  preceding  tides. 


{ft    ii^ 


—  61 


III     Lord    Bacon  and  the  Plays.      Essay  No.  VII, 

in  IV/'/,  Hunwr,  and  Shakes f  care.    By  John  Weiss. 

Boston:   1879.     (See  pages  247-269.) 

Pro-Sh. 

Mr.  Weiss,  after  taking  strong  ground  against  the  Bacon- 
ian position,  concludes : 

"It  is  not  entirely  just  to  say  that  the  contributions  of  men  wlio 
favor  the  theory  are  specimens  of  literary  futility.  They  are  frequently 
valuable  to  the  scholar  by  throwing  unexpected  side-lights  upon  the 
plays;  they  also  furnish  suggestions  to  the  interpreter.  They  have 
amassed  a  quantity  of  collateral  information  of  Shakespeare's  epoch, 
which  the  critic  will  thankfully  acknowledge  when  he  uses  it.  The 
minute  and  laborious  research  which  Judge  Holmes  has  expended  upon 
his  volume,  the  literary,  historical,  and  social  parallelisms  which  he  dis- 
closes, the  philosophy  and  style  of  thinking  of  Elizabeth's  age,  put  the 
lover  of  Shakespeare  under  obligation." 


I  12 


Lord    Bacon  :      Did    he  write  Shakespeare's 

Plays?      A   reply   to  Judge    Holmes,  Miss    Delia 

BAcon,  and  Mr.  W.  H.    Smith.     By  Charles  C. 

Cattell.       Birmingham:      G.  «&  J.   H.  Shipvvay, 

1879.     Pamphlet,   i2mo.  pp.  16. 

Pro-Sh. 


«'  Shakespeare  has  been  described  as  honest,  open,  gentle,  free,  hon- 
orable, and  amiable,  while  Bacon  has  been  described  as  ambitious,  cov- 
etous, base,  selfish,  unamiable,  and  unscrupulous.  Now,  taking  these 
descriptions  as  a  fair  index  of  their  souls,  which  is  the  more  likely  to 
have  portrayed  the  women  of  Shakespeare's  plays?" 


113     Great    Men's    Views 
Charles   C.    Cattell, 
Ingleby.     Birmingham:   1879 
16,   14. 


ON    Shakespeare.       By 

with    an    essay    by    Dr. 

i2mo.  pp.  55,  68, 


55 
Pro-Sh. 


A  collection  of  extracts  from  Dryden,  Goethe,  Lessing, 
the  Schlegels,  De  Stael,  Scott,  Beatty,  Coleridge,  Irving,  and 
many  others,  relating  to  Shakespeare;  Dawson's  Lectures  and 
Speeches  on  Shakespeare;  and  two  of  Mr.  Cattell's  pamphlets 
— all  bound  in  one  volume. 


—  62  — 

114  The  Shakespearean  Myth.  By  Appleton  Mor- 
gan. A  series  of  four  articles  in  Afpletons'  yotcr- 
iial.  New  York. 

a — The  Shakespearean  Myth,  Februarj',   1879,    P- 

1 12-126. 
b — The  Appeal  to  History,  June,  1879,  P-  48i-497- 
c — Extra   Shakespearean   Theories,  I,  June,   1880, 

p.  481-497. 
d — Extra  Shakespearean  Theories,  II,  July,   1880. 

Anh-,3n. 

These  were  the  first  articles  Mr.  Morgan  published  on  the 
question.  They  were  subsequently  enlarged  and  reproduced 
in  his  book  of  the  same  title.  (See  147.)  As  Mr.  Morgan's 
views  are  fully  explained  in  the  subsequent  title,  we  do  not 
refer  to  them   here. 

115  The  Shakespeare-Bacon  Controversy.  By 
Wm.    J.    RoLFE.        In    Shakespeariana,    Literary 

Wurld^  Boston,  March     i,  1879.      ^^  columns. 

Pro-Sh. 

Mr.  RoLFE,  after  a  concise  review  of  the  subject,  sums  up: 
that  the  authorship  was  never  questioned  by  Shakespeare's 
contemporaries,  who  had  every  motive  for,  and  opportunity  of 
detecting  such  a  fraud,  nor  for  nearly  three  hundred  years  later; 
that  the  poems  are  unquestionable,  and  that  there  are  striking 
similarities  between  them  and  the  questioned  plays;  that  Bacon's 
acknowledged  verses  bear  no  comparison  to  those  of  Shake- 
speare; and  that  the  plays  came  to  an  end  at  Shakespeare's 
death,  when  Bacon  had  still  ten  years  of  literary  leisure,  with 
no  danger  of  injuring  his  reputation  by  acknowledging  or 
continuing   them. 

116  "Shakespeare  and  the  Musical  Glasses."  By 
Myron  B.  Benton.     In  A-ppIetons'  yournal,  April, 

1879.     (See  pages  336-344-) 

Pro-Sh, 


-63- 

An  answer  to  Mr.  Morgan's  first  article  in  AppUtons'  youmal: 

"  While  denying  with  emphatic  iteration  that  Shakespeare  is  the  true 
author,  he  [Mr.  Morgan]  would  persuade  us  that  the  plays  and  poems 
attributed  to  him  are  the  composite  work  of  an  indefinite  number  of 
minds,  varying  in  all  degrees  of  the  scale  of  ability,  from  the  insight 
of  a  profound  philosopher,  and  the  scholarship  and  culture  of  a  chival- 
rous gentlemen,  down  to  the  level — down,  indeed,  to  the  very  'bottom- 
lands' of  a  grade  of  imbecility  vague  and  appalling.  *  *  *  The  genial 
Goldsmith  must  have  had  a  premonition  of  these  latter-day  enlighten- 
ments when  he  wrote  of  '  Shakespeare  and  the  Musical  Glasses.'  *  *  * 
Here  was  one  of  his  [Shakespeare's]  contemporaries,  for  instance, 
Lord  Bacon,  whose  acknowledged  works  are  also  voluminous.  Is  it 
possible  to  believe  that  there  was  a  common  authorship  to  both? 
Each  is  characterized  by  a  strongly  individualized  style,  as  all  writings 
are  that  the  world  cares  to  read.  Each  has  a  flavor  distinct  from  the 
other.     Yet,  if  Bacon  be    the  author  of  both  sets  of  works,  he  must  in 

one  of   them    have  assumed   a   style    of  composition   foreign   to  him a 

thing  impossible,  even  were  there  a  motive  for  such  an  undertaking. 
•»  «  s  Similarity,  or  even  identity,  of  ideas,  or  precepts,  or  axioms — 
any  likeness  of  speculation  or  philosophy — all  these  are  nothing  what- 
ever. The  human  mind,  at  the  root,  is  everywhere  the  same.  Coun- 
terparts appear  constantly  in  literature,  even  in  widely-severed  nations 
and  ages.  Such  parallels  as  are  pointed  out  in  Bacon  and  Shake- 
speare can  be  discovered  in  almost  any  two  writers  ;  but  of  that  indi- 
viduality that  must  permeate  the  work  of  any  writer,  in  manner  of  treat- 
ment, in  style,  there  seem  to  be  no  traces  in  common." 

117     Notices  of  Sir  Patrick  Colquhoun's  Essay  on 

The  Authorship    of  Shakes-pear c.     In  the  London 

journals,  as  follows : 

a — In  the   Globe,  May  23,   1879. 

b — In  the  Daily   Telegrafh^  May  24,    1879. 

c — In  BeWs    Weekly  Messenger,  June  2,   1879. 

Unc. 
Sir  Patrick  Colquhoun's  paper  was  read  before  the  Royal 
Society  of  Literature,  London,  May  21,  1879.  It  has  never 
been  printed.  He  holds  Shakespeare  "to  have  been  a  mere 
theatrical  manager,  who  bought  the  plays  of  poor  authors,  and 
perhaps  suggested  certain  buffooneries  for  the  delectation  of 
the  gods,"  etc.  This  essay  has  since  been  recast  and  consider- 
ably augmented;  and  it  is  probable  that  it  may  yet  be  pub- 
lished in  book.  form. 


-64- 

ii8  The  Shakespeare  Plays,  the  Theatre,  etc. 
Who  wrote  Shakespeare?  By  O.  F.  [O.  Fol- 
lett,  of  Sandusk}',  O.]  Printed  for  private  cir- 
culation.   Sandusky  :  May,   1879.    Pamphlet,  pp.  47. 

Anti-Sh. 

"  If,  then,  Shakespeare  did  not  write  Shakespeare,  who  did  ?  The 
question  is  already  answered.  But  one  man  could.  Only  one  [Bacon] 
was  fully  equij'ped  for  the  task  in  its  full  proportions.  *  *  * 
It  has  been  *' aui  Casar  out  ntillus" — Shakespeare  or  nothing.  Not  a 
line,  not  a  scrap,  not  a  sentiment  outside  the  dramas  and  poems  has 
been  vouchsafed  to  us,  as  a  test  of  style,  or  by  which  to  measure  capac- 
ity. Without  preparation,  without  drill,  this  man  is  master  of  all  learn- 
ing, law,  physic,  theology,  nay,  of  state-craft  as  well.  If  Shakespeare 
proper  was  all  this,  then  Shakespeare  the  poet  was  a  miracle,  and 
may  be  worshiped — and  Stratford  may  well  be  his  shrine." 

119  The  So-called  Shakespearean  Myth.  By  F. 
R.,  Barrie.  [Francis  Rye,  of  Barrie,  Ontario, 
Canada.]  In  the  Canadian  Monthly  for  July,  1879. 
(See  pages   76-79.) 

Pro-Sh. 

An  answer  to  Mr.  Morgan's  articles  in  Appletons"    "jfournaU 

T20  Who  Wrote  Shakespeare's  Plays?  By  Henry 
G.  Atkinson,  F.G.S.     In  the  Spiritualist,  London, 

Tuly  4,  1879. 

Anti-Sh, 

Mr.  Atkinson  is  an  ardent  Baconian.  His  writings  on  the 
subject  consist  principally  of  short  articles  in  various  periodicals, 
which  will  be  found  noted  hereafter. 

"It  would  be  absurd  to  expect  to  find  the  same  variety  in  Bacon's 
philosophical  writings  as  in  the  plays,  where  we  have  philosophy  and 
poetry  combined,  together  with  wit,  humor,  and  every  kind  of  char- 
acter and  turn  of  sentiment.  But  here  is  Ben  Jonson's  account  of  Bacon. 
Bacon's  prose,  says  Judge  Holmes,  is  Shakespearian  poetry,  and  Shake- 
speare's poetry  is  Baconian  prose.  Jonson  says:  'There  happened  in 
my  time  one  noble   speaker,   who   was   full   of  gravity  in  his  speaking. 


-65- 

His  language,  where  he  could  spare,  or  pass  by  a  jest,  was  nobly  cen- 
sorious. No  man  ever  spoke  more  neatly,  more  weightily,  or  sutfeied 
less  emptiness,  less  idleness,  in  what  he  uttered.  No  menrber  of  his 
speech  but  consisted  of  his  own  graces.  His  hearers  could  not  cough, 
or  look  aside  from  him  without  loss.  He  commanded  when  he  spoke, 
and  had  his  judges  angry  and  pleased  at  his  devotion.  No  man  had 
their  affections  more  in  his  power.  The  fear  of  every  man  who  heard 
him  was  lest  he  should  make  an  end.'  Here,  then,  we  have  related, 
from  one  most  capable  of  judging,  those  very  qualities  of  mind  we 
should  expect  to  find  in  the  writer  of  the  plays,  but  which  Shakespeare 
was  never  known  to  have  exhibited  at  any  time,  or  in  any  place;  and 
wc  have  not  a  scrap  of  his  play-writing  existing,  or  ever  known  to  have 
existed,  nor  referred  to  in  his  will.  Some  of  his  finest  plays  were  not 
known  to  exist  until  seven  years  after  his  death,  in  the  collected  folio 
of  1623." 

121  On  Renascence  Drama,  or  History  made  Vis- 
ible. By  William  Thomson,  F.R.C.S.,  F.L.S., 
Melboui-ne,  Australia:  Sands  &  McDougall,  1880. 
8vo.  pp.    359. 

Anti-Sh. 

Dr.  Thomson's  title  is  adopted  from  Bacon's  History  of 
Learning:  "Dramatic  poetry  is  as  history  made  visible;  for 
it  represents  actions  as  if  they  were  present,  whereas  history 
represents  them  as  past."  He  continues  in  this  work  the 
argument  as  to  the  political  purpose  of  certain  of  the  Shake- 
spearian plays,  which  he  classes  under  the  style  of  the  Renas- 
cence Drama;  and,  reasoning  from  that  standpoint,  claims 
the  authorship  for  Bacon.     The  book  cominences  : 

"  The  political  purpose  of  the  Renascence  Drama  has  never  been 
defined.  And  yet  for  a  patriotic  object  the  series  of  plays  so  named 
were  evidently  written.  The  motive  is  avowed  in  prologue,  epilogue 
and  induction;  and  everywhere  throughout  the  works  the  aim  is  obvious. 
You  are  required  to 

'  Think  you  see 
The  very  persons  of  our  noble  story 
As  they  were  living.'  " 

Tlie  author  reviews  The  Tempest,  Twelfth  Nighty  Julius 
Ccesar,  Hamlet,  Othello,  and  others  of  the  plays,  from  his  view 
as  to  the  political  motive  of  Bacon  in  producing  them,  inter- 
preting   them    as   allegories  bearing   on  persons  and  events  of 


—  66  — 

the  time.  In  his  elucidation  of  Twclji/i  -iVig/if,  he  goes  so  far 
as  to  indicate  "the  persons  representtd  in  false  names "  for 
all  the  leading  characters.  A  recapitulation  of  these  may  be 
interesting  to  the  student  of  history,  as  well  as  the  student 
of  Shakespeare:  £>uke  Orsino  is  Sir  Philip  Sidney;  Sebastian, 
Robert  Devereux,  Earl  of  Essex;  Sir  Toby  Belch,  Sir  Francis 
Knollys;  Sir  Andrew  Aguecheek,  the  Earl  of  Leicester;  Mai- 
volio.  Sir  Walter  Raleigh;  Fabian,  Sir  Fulke  Greville,  Feste, 
the  clown,  Dick  Tarleton ;  Olivia,  Queen  Elizabeth;  Viola,  Pen- 
dope  Devereux;  and  Maria,   Lattice   Knollys. 

A  critic  has  said  of  Dr.  Thomson's  argument:  "If  he  has 
succeeded  in  anything,  it  is  in  unearthing  a  wealth  of  ver- 
biage, which  is  more  than  proof  against  a  powerful  micro- 
scopic analysis.  Whatever  may  be  his  object,  he  conceals  it 
by  his  language."  An  extract  from  an  article  in  the  Free- 
man's Journal,  Dublin  (title  154),  will  give  evidence  of  the 
scope  of  the  boi  k  : 

"He  [Dr.  Thomson]  argues  from  the  identity  of  the  language  in 
the  plays  and  Bacon's  works — from  the  difficulty  of  finding  where  Shake- 
speare, who  was  all  but  totally  uneducated,  got  all  the  wondrous  learn- 
ing that  the  works  attributed  to  him  exhibit — from  the  notorious  fact 
of  Bacon's  universal  learning — and  from  facts  connected  with  the  dates 
of  the  publication  of  the  poems  and  dramas,  which  can  scarcely  be 
reconciled  with  the  incidents  of  Shakespeare's  life,  and  which  fit  in 
admirably  with  the  stages  of  Bacon's  chequered  career.  Dr.  Thomson 
argues  also,  with  considerable  acumen  and  subtlety,  from  the  inferences 
which  the  allegorical  and  politieal  interpretation  of  such  plays  as  even 
Hamlet  aad  Macbeth  require  ;  and  he  argues  to  the  same  effect  from 
the  sonnets,  and  from  the  non-detlication  of  the  sonnets  to  the  Earl  of 
Southampton  in  1609,  to  whom  in  1593  the  poems  oi  Venus  and  AJonis 
and  Lucrece  were  dedicated.  This  circumstance,  which  is  such  a  crux 
on  the  ordinary  interpretation  that  Shakespeare  was  the  author  of  the 
sonnets,  and  that  Southampton  was  his  loving  patron,  is  easily  explica- 
ble on  being  reminded  that  in  the  interval  between  the  appearance  of 
the  two  sets  of  poems,  the  Earl  of  Southampton,  on  his  liberation  from 
prison,  had  become  a  deadly  enemy  of  Bacon," 

122  "Mr.  Hudson's  Four  Reasons."  (See  Shake- 
speare: /lis  Life,  Art,  and  Character.  By  Rev. 
H.  N.    Hudson.     Vol.  I,  p.   269,  edition  of  1880.) 

Pro-Sh. 


-67- 

-  *  »  "It  was  Lord  Bacon,  not  Sliakespcare,  who  enjoyed  so 
richly  the  friendship  and  patronage  of  the  generous  Essex;  and  how 
he  requited  the  same  is  known  much  loo  well  for  his  credit.  I  am  not 
unmindful  that  this  may  yield  some  comfort  to  lliose  who  would  per- 
suade us  that  Shakespeare's  plays  were  written  by  Lord  Bacon.  Upon 
this  point  I  have  just  four  things   to  say  : 

<'/»-j/_ Bacon's  requital  of  the  Earl's  bounty  was  such  a  piece  of 
ingratitude  as  I  can  hardly  conceive  the  author  of  A'ing  Lear  to  have 
been  guilty  of. 

''  Secottd—The  author  of  Shakespeare's  plays,  whoever  he  may  have 
been  certainly  was  not  a  scholar;  he  had  indeed  something  vastly  bet- 
ter than  learning,  but  he  had  not   that. 

"  Third — Shakespeare  never  philosophizes;  Bacon  never  does  anything 

else. 

'' Fouiih— Bs.con's  mind,  great  as  it  was,  might  have  been  cut  out 
of  Shakespeare's  without  being  missed." 

Noticing  the  above,  Dr.  Ingleby  adds  another  reason: 

''Fifth Bacon  excelled  all  writers  of  his  day  in  prose;  but  the  very 

best  of  the  verses  attributed  to  him  (not  all  his,  by  the  way)  are  fourth- 
rate  •  while  Shakespeare's  verse  is  everywhere  incomparably  better  than 
his  prose;  and  he  thus  excelled  where  Bacon  most  faulted." 

123  The  Authorship  of  Shakespeare.  A  contro- 
versy between  H.  G.  Atkinson,  F.G.S.,  and  Mr. 
Charles  C.  Cattell.      London:     H.    Cattell   & 

Co.,  n.  d.   [1880].     Pamphlet,    i2mo.  pp.  16. 

Uiic. 

This  consists  of  three  papers  on  each  side  of  the  question, 
reprinted  from  the  pages  of  the  Secular  Review,  London. 

124  The  Authorship  of  Shakespeare's  Plays.  A 
review  of  Holmes.  In  the  Southern  ^lartcrly 
Review^  New  Orleans,  January,  1880.  By  the 
editor,  Daniel  K.  Whitaker.   (Seepages  172-179.) 

Pro-Sh. 

125  Judge  Holmes's  "Parallelisms"  between 
Shakespeare  and  Bacon.  By  Wm.  J.  Rolfe. 
In  Shahcspeariana,  Literary   IVor/d,  Boston,  April 

10,    1880.      2   columns. 

Pro-S/i. 


—  68  — 

126  Shakespeare.  A  letter  from  Mr.  Joseph  Crosby, 
Zanesville,  O.  In  the  Church  Eclectic,  Utica,  N. 
Y.,  November,   1880.     (See  pages  719-728.) 

Pro-Sh, 

The  paper  of  Mr.  Crosby  was  originally  written  as  a  pri- 
vate letter  to  Rev.  Dr.  James  A.  Bolles,  who  transmitted  it 
to  the  Eclectic  for  publication.  It  is  quite  comprehensive, 
occupying  eight  pages  of  the  magazine,  and  is  an  answer  to 
Mr.  Morgan's  Shakespeareaji  Myth  articles,  and  also  to  the 
other  arguments  against  Shakespeare's  authorship. 

"But  our  Shakespeare  was  w^/ an  uneducated  man;  on  the  contrary, 
he  was,  for  the  time,  a  man  of  letters.  We  know  that  he  received  a 
fair  grammar-school  education,  *  *  *  and  education  at  those  gram- 
mar-schools was  very  thorough  in  those  days.  After  he  went  to  Lon- 
don, we  soon  hear  of  him  in  the  best  society  ;  he  was  a  natural  absorbent, 
and  no  doubt  had,  in  addition  to  the  advantages  of  high-toned  con- 
versation, access  to  all  such  books  as  the  time  supplied.  It  is  a  great 
error  to  speak  of  Shakespeare,  as  many  do,  as  an  'inspired  ignoramus.' 
And  then,  after  all,  it  was  not  mere  scholastic  knowledge  that  Shake- 
speare needed  for  his  productions.  Jonson  had  this,  in  an  eminent 
degree;  and  his  dramas  are,  I  think,  only  the  worse  for  it.  Shakespeare 
knew  enough  to  read  Hall,  and  More,  and  Holinshead,  and  North's 
Plutarch  for  his  history  ;  and  enough  of  the  modern  languages  to  read 
Italian  and  other  continental  novels  for  the  sake  of  the  plots — the  dry- 
bones,  on  which  he  built  the  flesh  and  blood  of  life  in  his  immortal 
works.  The  real  books  that  Shakespeare  studied  were  the  Book  of 
Mankind  and  the  Book  of  N'ature,  and  these  he  knew  by  heart.  He 
needed  not  a  university  to  teach  him  these.  "While  his  style  shows 
frequently,  by  the  radical  and  exact  senses  in  which  he  employs  numer- 
ous words,  that  he  had  a  competent  knowledge  of  the  Latin  language, 
it  is  in  his  using  the  idiomatic  powers  of  the  English  language,  in  their 
highest  perfection,  that  its  force  and  beauty  consist.  Jonson's  style,  as 
a  dramatic  writer,  is  often  marred,  and  enfeebled,  and  spoilt,  by  his 
exuberant  Latin  quotations,  and  magniloquence,  and  learned  affectation  ; 
and  that  is  why  I  say  that  Shakespeare's  'little  Latin  and  less  Greek' 
stood  him  in  better  stead  than  all  the  ponderous  learning  and  classic 
conceits  that  weighted  the  poetry  of  his  rival. 

%  -Jje  ^;  'Ji;  vji  vi&  "X"  %  ^  'V  'v 

"There  is  one  argument  that  these  theorists  seem  never  to  have 
examined  viz :  that  deducible  from  Shakespeare's  poems  and  sonnets. 
These  no  one  has  ever  disputed  his  authorship  of.  That  cannot  be  dis- 
puted, for   he   published   them  himself,    and   dedicated    them    to   noble- 


-69- 

inen  of  the  day,  under  his  own  name.  And  yet  can  any  intelligent 
person  read  these  works,  and  not  be  convinced  that  the  same  mind  and 
hand  produced  them  that  produced  the  dramas?  There  are  not  only 
similar  expressions,  but  whole  lines,  similes,  metaphors,  and  turns  of 
thought  are  constantly  recurring,  the  same  in  each.  This,  to  my  mind, 
is  as  strong  an  argument  as  I  could  ask.  A  careful  study  of  the  poems 
and  sonnets  is  a  great  help  to  understanding  many  things  in  the  plays: 
and  the  fact  that  one  person  wrote  both  is  as  undoubted  and  clear  to  me 
as  noonday."     ■■•     *     *     "* 

127  Was  Bacon  Shakespeare?  By  R.  C.  C.  [Rich- 
ard CoLAMA  Close].  In  the  Victorian  Reviczu, 
Melbourne,  Australia,  for  November,   1880.      (See 

p^g*^^  54-70.)  p^^_^^^ 

An  answer  to  Dr.  Thomson's  Renascence  Drama. 


■S-       *       <' 


•  There  has  been  no  single  instance,  from  the  earliest  his- 
toric times  up  to  the  present  day,  where  the  combination  of  a  Bacon 
and  a  Shakespeare,  the  impersonations  of  the  highest  talent  and  the 
greatest  genius,  has  found  its  centre  in  one  man.  It  is  possible,  but  not 
more  possible  than  a  miracle.  Few  have  ever  exceeded  Bacon  in  the 
force,  vigour,  terseness,  clearness,  and  splendor  of  his  prose.  None  has 
ever  'exceeded  Shakespeare,  either  as  a  writer  of  dramas  or  comedies. 
Bacon,  as  a  prose  writer,  stands  in  the  midst  of  a  goodly  company. 
The  m'ost  we  can  say  of  Bacon  is,  that  in  this  genre  he  was  prvnus  inter 
pares.  Shakespeare,  as  a  dramatic  genius,  stood  in  lonely  grandeur.  He 
was  first,  and  had  no  equals." 

(Mr.  Close  is  a  barrister  in   Sydney,  New  South  Wales.) 

128  Shakespeare's  Biography.  Does  it  conform  to 
the  Author  of  the  Plays?  By  "Lancer."  [O.  C. 
Stouder.]  In  the  Wittenberger  Magazine,  Spring- 
field, O.,  November,   1880.      2  pages. 

AntiSh. 

129  The  Authorship  of  Sh.\kespeare.     A  reply  to 

"  Lancer."     By  Mr.  Joseph  Crosby.     In  the  IVii 

tenberoer,  December,   1880.     2  pages. 

'"  Pro-Sh. 


—  'JO  — 

130  Shakespeare:        Did     he    write    the    works 

ATTRIBUTED    TO    HiiM ?      With    notcs    on     "  U7n(/ 

Shakespeare  Learnt  at  Selwoiy     By  Charles  C. 

Cattell.     London:      Henry  Cattell  «&  Co.,  n.  d. 

[probably   1881].     Pamphlet,  pp.  16. 

Pro-Sh. 

"It" seems  desirable  that,  in  a  publication  of  this  kind,  some  refer- 
ence Fhould  be  made  to  the  three  articles  by  Prof.  T.  F.  Baynes,  which 
appeared  in  1879  and  iSSo,  on  What  Shakespeare  Learnt  at  School. 
:s  »  *  That  he  could  have  been  sent  to  one  is  certain,  for  the  school 
at  Stratford-on-Avon  was  restored  in  1553  by  Edward  VI,  and  the  con- 
stitution and  management  were  the  same  as  other  schools  established  at 
that  period,  and  the  course  of  instruction  is  known  by  the  records  preserved 
of  Rotherham  school,  which  gives  a  list  of  books  generally  used  in  the 
grammar  schools  of  the  country.  *  At  that  time,  children  were 

sent  to  the  English  side  of  the  grammar  school  at  the  age  of  five,  and 
at  seven  they  commenced  the  study  of  Latin,  the  regular  course  taking 
about  ten  years;  so  that  boys  usually  left  school,  for  work  or  for  uni- 
versity study,  at  fifteen.  ■■-  '■■'  •■■  The  articles  were  published  in  Frascr's 
Magazine  in  1S79  and  i88(',  and,  to  my  mind,  sufficiently  explain  how 
the  youthful  Bard  of  Avon  might  lay  up  the  treasures  of  learning 
deemed  so  essential  in  the  production  of  his  immortal  works — his  pos- 
session of  which  has  been  so  often  doubted,  and  in  some  instances  pos- 
itively denied  to  him.  How  such  a  man,  living  in  such  a  time,  and  at 
such  a  place,  could  acquire  the  necessary  classic  knowledge,  no  longer 
remains  a  mystery." 

131  Carlyle's    Opinion.     (See    Thomas    Carlyle,   by 
MoNCURE  D.  Conway.     New  York:   1881.) 

Pro-Sh. 

Speaking  of  Carlyle,  on  page  122,  Mr.   Conway  says: 

"  He  was  more  patient  in  listening  to  Miss  Bacon,  also  introduced 
by  Emerson,  when  she  tried  to  persuade  him  that  Shakespeare's  plays 
were  written  by  Lord  Bacon.  Carlyle  never  thought  much  of  the 
philosopher  who  had  been  unable  to  recognize  such  a  contemporary 
as  Kepler ;  and  his  only  reply  to  Miss  Bacon  was,  '  Lord  Bacon  could 
as  easily  have  created  this  planet  as  he  could  have  written  Hamlet.' 
I  have  heard  that  when  she  had  gone  he  added,  to  a  letter  written  to 
his  friend  in  Concord,  the  brief  postscript,  'Your  woman's  mad.' 

T.  C" 


—  71  — 

132  Diu  SnAKESPKARE  Write  Bacon's  Works?  By 
Rev.  James  Freeman  Clarke.  In  the  North 
American  Review  for  Februaiy,  1881.     (See  pages 

Fro-Cili. 

"  When  we  ask  whether  it  would  have  been  easier  for  the  author 
of  the  philosophy  to  have  composed  the  drama,  or  the  dramatic  poet 
to  have  written  the  philosophy,  the  answer  will  depend  upon  which  is 
the  greater  of  the  two.  The  greater  includes  the  less,  but  the  less  can 
not  include  the  greater.  *  ®  «  Great  as  are  the  thoughts  of  the  Novum 
Organum,  they  are  inferior  to  that  world  of  thought  which  is  in  the 
drama.  We  can  easily  conceive  that  Shakespeare,  having  produced  in 
his  prime  the  wonders  and  glories  of  the  plays,  should  in  his  after 
leisure  have  developed  the  leading  ideas  of  the  Baconian  philosophy. 
But  it  is  difficult  to  imagine  that  Bacon,  while  devoting  his  main 
strength  to  politics,  to  law,  to  philosophy,  should  have,  as  a  mere 
pastime  for  his  leisure,  produced  in  his  idle  moments  the  greatest  intel- 
lectual work  ever  done  on  earth." 

133  Who  Wrote  Shakespeare?  By  Baconian. 
[William  W.  Ferrier,  of  Angola,  Ind.]  A  series 
of  eight  articles  in  February  and  March,  1881,  in 
the  Angola  (Ind.)  Herald.  Dated  February  9, 
16,  and  23  ;  March  2,  9,  16,  23,  and  30. 

Anti-Sh. 

The  writer  gives  all  the  main  points  in  the  controversy 
from  the  Baconian  standpoint.  In  his  introduction  he  says 
that  "a  noted  Shakespearean  doubter— Dr.  Farmer— lived  in 
the  eighteenth  century,  and  that  still  earlier  than  this,  as  men 
began  to  study  the  literature  and  lives  of  the  Elizabethan 
period,  difficulties  arose  in  regard  to  harmonizing  the  book 
Shakespeare  with  the  man  Shakespeare." 

We  quote,  from  the  third  paper,  as  to  one  point  only  : 

"The  mind  that  wrote  Shakespeare  was  a  mighty  mind.  But  it 
was  one  broadened  and  deepened,  nurtured  and  cultured  by  the  learn- 
ing and  experience  of  ages.  These  plays  tell  of  more  than  mere  genius. 
They  tell  of  years  of  earnest  study;  of  patient  investigation;  of  a  genius 
that  made  available  all  tlie  concentrated  resources  of  the  times.  Let 
us  consider  briefly  the  woiks  and  minds  of  some  prominent  in  the  mid- 


—  72  — 

die  ages,  and  find  there,  in  this  way,  a  consistency  that  is  not  in  the 
life  and  works  of  William  Shakespeare.  English  literature,  that  had 
originated  in  Caedmon,  that  had  burst  into  full  glory  in  Chaucer,  and 
with  him  had  also  passed  away,  met  again  in  its  beauty  and  grandeur 
a  glad  welcome  when  Spenser,  amid  the  blaze  of  the  magnificent  court 
of  Elizabeth,  placed  at  her  feet  the  Faerie  Queene.  But  Spenser's  life 
was  a  life  leading  to  the  production  of  grand  ideal  poetry.  His  education, 
combined  with  natural  genius,  had  prepared  him  for  it.  •■  •••  *  Early 
in  the  Christian  Renaissance,  there  originated,  within  prison  walls,  a 
book  which  has  the  greatest  hold,  next  to  the  Bible,  upon  the  English 
people.  That  book  was  the  Pilgritfi's  F7Vgress.  *  *  *  Linked  with 
the  name  of  the  old  prisoner  of  Bradford,  this  immortal  book  has  came 
down  to  us  in  its  journey  adown  the  centuries;  and  the  world  that 
questions  the  authorship  of  Shakespeare,  finds  nothing  inharmonious  or 
incongruous  between  the  life  of  Bunyan  and  this  grand  work.  •■•  *  * 
Contemporary  with  Shakespeare  was  one  known  as  a  'genuine  literary 
leviathan.'  It  was  Ben  Jonson,  erudite  in  all  the  classics,  of  whom  it  has 
been  said,  '  he  had  so  well  entered  into  and  digested  the  Greek  and 
Latin  ideas,  that  they  were  incorporated  with  his  own.'  But  Ben  Jon- 
son's  education  made  him  this.  *  *  *  The  years  of  the  Christian 
Renaissance  brought  forth  another  work  that  the  world  will  not  let 
die.  It  is  the  immortal  epic  of  Milton — Paradise  Lost.  But  England 
has  known  no  more  erudite  man  than  Milton;  and  whatever  of  pro- 
found knowledge  there  is  found  in  his  works,  may  be  readily  accounted 
for  by  cause  and   effect.      *  *      Thus,  it  may  be  seen,    that  from 

the  works  and  lives  of  such  as  Spenser,  Bunyan,  Jonson,  and  Milton, 
no  argument  can  be  adduced  in  favor  of  William  Shakespeare." 


134  Did  Bacon  Write  Fletcher's  Plays?  B3' 
William  J.  Rolfe.  In  Shakcsfeai'iana ,  Lit- 
erary   Worlds  Boston,  February  12,   1881. 

Unc. 

"Bacon  ^/(/  write   Fletcher's  Plays,   for  the    Judge    [Holmes]    proves 
it — just  as  he  proves  that  he  wrote  Shakespeare's  plays." 

135  Is    THERE    ANY     DoUBT    AS    TO    THE    AUTHORSHIP? 

In  the  Harvard  University  Bulletin^  April  i,  1881. 

Unc. 

A  short  hst  of  the   references   for   the   use   of  students  in 
debate. 


—  73  — 

136  "Our  Club."  Shakespeare  Night,  April  26, 
188 1.  H.  HoLL  in  the  Chair.  An  address  deliv- 
ered by  Mr.  Iloll,  being  in  part  an  answer  to  Dr. 
Benj.   "W.    Richardson.        With    letter    to    Dr.    R. 

Pamphlet,  i2mo.  pp.  22. 

Pro-Sh. 

The  address  of  Dr.  Richardson's,  alluded  to  above,  was 
delivered  before  "Our  Club"  (the  original  Hooks  and  Eyes, 
rechristened),  at  the  annual  Shakespeare  dinner,  in  April,  1877. 
It  has  never  been  published.  It  seems,  while  expressing 
some  doubts,  to  have  opposed  the  Baconian  hypothesis. 

137  William  Shakespeare  in  Romance  and  Real- 
ity.    By  William  Thomson.     Melbourne:  Sands 

&  McDougall,   1881.     8vo.  pp.  95. 

Anti-Sh. 

This  is  a  continuation  of  the  Renascence  Drama,  including 
an  answer  to  the  criticisms  of  that  work,  but  of  a  more  prac- 
tical turn — devoted  more  to  the  historical  than  to  the  allegor- 
ical and  political  argument. 

"Not  only  is  Bacon's  name  always  linked  with  that  of  Shakespeare, 
but  no  other  name  is  ever  so  associated.  No  other  author  unwittingly 
enters  men's  thoughts  along  with  the  author  of  the  drama,  except  alone 
Bacon  •  and  he  is  the  only  magician  or  creator  of  the  prevailing  Baconian 
philosophy.  Alluding  to  Shakespeare's  forestalling  Newton  when  making 
Cressida  compare  her  .heart  to  the  center  of  the  earth,  drawing  all 
things  to  it,  it  is  asked  how  he  knew  what  Newton  was  going  to  dis- 
cover. But  Voltaire  long  ago  showed  where  Bacon  forestalled  Newton. 
How,  then,  did  he  know  what  Newton  w^ould  discover?  Either  both  Bacon 
and  Shakespeare  forestalled  Newton  on  the  great  physical  discovery,  or 
one  mind  did  so  in  two  different  ways,  at  the  same  instant  of  time. 
*  *     When    Bacon  explained  to  King  James  how   'bodies  fall   to- 

ward the  center  of  the  earth,'  and  'iron  trembles  under  adamant,'  Shake- 
speare made  Prince  Troilus  vow  he  would  be  true  to  Cressida, 
'  As  iron  to  adamant,  as  earth  to  the  centre.' 

While  her  love  for  him  in  return 

'  Is  as  the  very  centre  o{  the   earth, 
Drawing  all  things  to  it.'  " 


—  74  — 

138  Shakespeare — The  Plays  and  Poems  Logi- 
cally AND  Historically  Considered.  Adden- 
dum to  "Who  Wrote  Shakespeare?"  By  O.  F. 
[O.  Follett].  Sandusk}',  O, :  May,  1881.  Pamph- 
let, pp.    12. 

Anti-Sh. 

A  continuation  of  Mr.  Follett's  first  pamphlet. 

139  Was   Shakespeare  a   Myth?      By  Broadbrim. 

[J.   H.  Warwick,  Brooklyn,   N.  Y.]      A  series  of 

three    articles    in    the    Angola    (Ind.)    Repnblican, 

May  25,  June  8,  and  June  22,   1881. 

Pro-Sh. 

The  first  two  of  these  articles  treat  the  subject,  in  the 
author's  words,  "from  the  ground-work  of  fact  and  historical 
probability;"  the  concluding  one  invites  attention  to  "the 
character  of  the  age  that  produced  Shakespeare,"  with  an 
analysis  of  "the  character  of  those  who  have  been  instru- 
mental in  propagadng  the  libels  on  his  memory." 

140  Articles  in  Shakesfcariaiia.  In  the  Literary 
World,  Boston,  of  dates  following: 

a — Judge    Holmes  on  Julius  Caesar,  June  4,   1881. 

b — New  Champions  of  the  Baconian  Theory  (Mrs. 

Windle  and  Dr.  Thomson),  November  5,  1881. 

c — Morgan's  Shakespearean    Mj-th,    Dec.  3,    1881. 

Unc. 

141  Was  Bacon  Shakespeare?     An  Exposition  of 

THE  Great  Controversy.     By  E.  W.  Tullidge. 

In      Tiinidge's     ^uirtcrly    Magazine,    Salt     Lake 

City,  Utah,  July,   1881.      13  pages. 

Anti-Sh. 

"It  is  startlingly  singular  that  directly  Shakespeare  is  brought  down 
to  the  human  plane,  and  considered  there,  whether  as  a  supreme  poet, 
or  a  supreme  metaphysician  (both  of  which  he  was)  he  became  Bacon. 
Of  all  men  of  the  Elizabethan' age,  and  perhaps  of  any  age,   Bacon  is  the 


-75- 

only  equivalent  for  Shakespeare.  *  »  *  And  it  is  something  very  like 
a  hidden  record,  long  concealed,  of  the  real  identity  of  Shakespeare 
sutUlcnly  brought  to  light,  that  the  name  of  Bacon,  once  started,  so 
nearly  answers  to  the  entire  mystery  of  Shakespeare,  even  before  inves- 
tigation of  the  proof  that  he  was  the  one  who  had  lent  to  another  his 
lion's  skin.  It  was  this  very  fact,  indeed,  which  has  started  able 
authors  and  critics  to  investigate  this  subject,  and  which  inclines  mul- 
titudes to  believe  'there  is  something   in  it.'" 

(Mr.  TuLLiDGE  is  the  editor  of  the  Quarterly,  and  a  strong 
Baconian.  Several  lengthy  articles  from  his  pen  will  be  found 
noted  in  this  list.) 

142  The  Sweet  Bard  of  Avon,  and  The  Shake- 
spearean Question.  By  Baconian.  [William 
W.  Ferrier.]  Two  articles  in  the  Angola  (Inch) 
Herald,  dated  July  27,  and  August  5,   1881. 

Anti-Sh. 
An  answer  to  the  ' '  Broadbrim  "  articles. 

143  Address  to  the  New  Shakespere  Society  of 
London.  Discovery  of  Lord  Verulam's  undoubted 
authorship  of  the  "  Shakespere  "  Works.  By  Mrs. 
C.  F.  AsHMEAD  Windle.  San  Francisco :  Joseph 
Winterburn  &  Co.,  Printers,  1881.  (Printed  for 
the  author.)     Pamphlet,  pp.  46. 

Anii-S/i. 

The  first  of  Mrs.  Windle's  pamphlets.  For  an  example 
of  her  special  theories  see  tide  of  the  second  pamphlet,  No.  165. 

144  Shakespeare,  not  Bacon.  By  J.  S.  Qames 
Smith].  In  the  Daily  Argus,  Melbourne,  Aus- 
tralia, August  20,  1881.  3^  columns.  (Reprinted 
in  the  Stratford-on-Avon  Herald,  November  4, 
and  November  11,  1881.) 

Pro-Sh. 

After  citing  contemporary  authorities  as  to  the  authorship 
of  Venus  and  Adonis,  The  Rape  of  Lucrece,  and  The  Passionate 
riigriin^  the  writer  says : 


-76- 

"I  submit  that  Shakespeare's  authorship  of  the  three  poems  enu- 
merated, is  established  by  contemporary  testimony  sufficiently  strong  to 
satisfy  any  court  of  justice  in  the  world,  albeit  I  am  not  aware  that 
his  paternity  of  the  Sonnets,  or  of  The  Lover's  Complaint,  has  ever  been 
seriously  disputed.  I  shall  now  proceed  to  show  that  the  same  hand 
which  wrote  the  whole  of  the  before-mentioned  works  also  produced 
the  dramas.  And  I  shall  rely  upon  the  very  same  kind  of  evidence 
as  that  which  has  been  employed  to  sustain  the  fanciful  and  extrav- 
agant theory  that  Bacon  was  the  author  of  them.  But  though  it  will 
resemble  it  in  kind,  it  will  be  found  to  be,  unless  I  am  very  much 
mistaken,  greater  in  volume  and  weightier  in  character  than  that 
which  has  been  so  laboriously  collected  and  so  ingeniously  set  forth  by 
Mr.  N.   Holmes,   Miss  Delia  Bacon,  and  by  Mr.  W.   H.    Smith." 

He  then  cites  a  long  list  of  parallelisms  between  the  poems 
and  the  plays,  and  peculiar  words  used  in  the  same  sense  in 
each,  to  substantiate  his  position.  "In  his  plays,  Shakespeare 
naturally  fell  into  the  same  forms  of  expression  as  those  he 
has  previously  made  use  of  in  his  poems,  and  occasionally 
repeated  himself  both  in  thought  and  word." 

(Mr.  Smith  is  a  resident  of  Melbourne— an  editorial  writer 
on  the  Argus.) 

145     Bacon,  not  Shakespeare.    By  W.  T.,  in  rejoinder 

to  the  Shahcsfeare,  not  Bacon,  of  J.  S.     [By  Dr. 

William  Thomson].    Melbourne,  Australia,  August 

20,  1881.     Pamphlet,   pp.  16. 

Anti-Sh. 

A  portion  of  this  only  appears  in  an  addenda  to  Romance 
and  Reality. 

"The  bare  fact  that  the  dramas  and  poems  are  from  the  same  hand 
has  never  been  doubted,  but  1  affirm  that  not  Shakespeare  but  Bacon 
wrote  both.  J.  S.  only  compares  Shakespeare  with  Shakespeare,  but  he 
does  not  compare  Shakespeare  with  Bacon,  as  he  necessarily  must  do 
before  he  can  confute  any  inference  deduced  from  that  comparison. 
*  *  *  He  therefore,  dare  not  allow  himself  to  become  acquainted 
with  the  contents  of  my  book,  whose  syllogism  is — 

"  Whoever  wrote  the  Sonnets  wrote  the  Plays. 
I  show  Bacon  to  have  writ  the  Sonnets; 
Therefore,  Bacon  also  wrote  the  Plays.''' 


—  77  — 

146  Bacon  and  Shakespeare  on  Vivisection.  By 
E.  H.  Plumptre,  D.D.  In  the  Sfcctator,  Lon- 
don, August  24,  1 88 1.  (Copied  in  Good  Liter a- 
//^re,  New  York,  September  17,   1881.) 

Unc. 
This   does   not   refer    to    the    Bacon-Shakespeare   question 
proper,  but  the  title  is  inserted   as    Dr.   Thomson  answered  it 
from  the  standpoint  of  the  authorship.     (See  tide   156.) 

147  The  Shakespearean  Myth.  William  Shake- 
speare and  Circumstantial  Evidence.  By  Ap- 
pleton  Morgan,  A.M.,  L,L.B.,  author  of  ''The 
Law  of  Literature,"  "Notes  to  Best's  Principles 
of  Evidence,"  etc.,  etc.  Cincinnati :  Robert  Clarke 
&  Co.,   1881.     8vo.   pp.  342. 

Anti-Sh. 

This  work  is  an  enlargement  of  the  four  articles  under  the 
same  title,  appearing  in  Appktons'  Journal  in   1879  and  1880. 

Mr.  Morgan  adopts  the  editorial  or  proprietary  theory. 
He  gives  a  schedule  of  the  difficulties  connected  with  the 
question  of  the  authorship,  and  a  digest  of  the  several  theories 
framed  to  meet  them.  He  states  his  reasons  for  rejecting  all 
of  the  latter,  and  offers  a  new  synthetic  theory  in  their  place, 
somewhat  as   follows : 

«'I.  From  contemporary  evidence,  recorded  in  law  courts  and 
pnblic  offices,  we  are,  perhaps,  better  informed  of  ihc  personnel  of  Wil- 
liam Shakespeare,  than  of  any  other  private  gentleman  of  Elizabeth's 
reign. 

♦'  II.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  he  came  to  London  in  great 
poverty,  and  in  a  comparatively  few  years'  residence,  was  enabled  to 
retire  with  a  fortune  which — although  variously  estimated  by  his  friends 
and  rivals — was  certainly  very  large  for  those  days. 

"III.  To  have  accumulated  so  large  a  fortune  in  so  short  a  time 
by  bterary  labor  would  have  been  exceptional  in  any  case,  but  the 
mental  equipment  brought  by  William  Shakespeare  to  London  does  not 
seem  to  have  been  equal  to  such  an  accumulation  in  his;  it  certainly 
was  not  equal  to  the  Venus  and  Adonis,  the  Hamlet^  and  the  other  mas- 
terpieces which  began  to  crowd  upon  each  other — in  none  of  Arhich  can 
any  trace  of  Warwickshire  dialect  or  origin    be  found. 


—  78  - 

"IV.  If,  however,  Shakespeare  made  his  fortune  in  the  manage- 
ment of  theatres  (which  became  popular  in  London  at  this  time,  and 
in  which  he  met  but  indifferent  competition;,  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose 
that  these  plays,  being  exclusively  secured  by  him,  and  becoming  pop- 
ular through  his  stage  handling,  came  to  be,  not  only  the  sources  of  his 
fortune,  but  identified  and  called  by  his  name;  certainly,  less  unreason- 
able (however  exceptional)  than  to  rest  all  this  poetry,  pathos,  philos- 
ophy, and  human  experience  in  the  genius  of  a  letterless  rustic,  with  a 
reputation  in  his  native  village  for  scapegrace  escapades,  gallantries,  and 
poaching  expeditions,  rather  than  for  meditation,  study,  or  literary  com- 
position. 

"V.  But  while  claiming  for  Shakespeare  a  proprietary  rather  than 
a  {productive  title  in  the  plays,  Mr.  Morgan  is  very  far  from  estimating  him 
a  dummy.  'Surely  it  is  a  less  violent  supposition  that  this  funny  Mr. 
Shakespeare,  as  he  wrote  out  the  parts  in  big  round  hand,  improved  on 
or  interpolated  a  palpable  hit,  a  droll  speech,  the  last  popular  song;  or 
sketched  entire  a  role  with  a  name  familiar  to  his  boyish  ear — the  vil- 
lage butt  or  sot,  or  justice  of  the  peace,  or  why  not  some  fellow- 
scapegrace  of  olden  times  by  Avon  banks.  He  did  it  with  a  swift 
touch  and  mellow  humor  that  relieved  and  refreshed  the  stately  speeches 
— making  the   play   all   the    more   available.'         *         *         * 

"VI.  The  only  testimony  really  negativing  this  view  is  Ben 
Tonson's.  But  that  this  is  mere  mortuary  eulogy — is  anything  but  the 
sort  of  evidence  'we  accept  in  our  personal  affairs,  our  courts  of  justice, 
in  matters  in  which  we  have  anything  at  stake,  or  any  living  interest' 
(p.  131),  and  IS,  moreover,  perfectly  disposed  of  by  Jonson  himself,  in 
his  Discoveries,  and  conversations  with  Drummond,  when  he  commends 
Shakespeare's  fluency  and  industry,  but  omits  all  mention  of  him  in  his 
list  of  eminent  writers,  poets,  and  thinkers  of  that  age. 

"  Mr.  Morgan  disclaims  any  conjectures  as  to  the  authors  of  the 
Shakespearean  text.  But  while  admitting  that  Bacon,  or  even  Raleigh, 
may  have  had  a  hand  in  them,  insists  that  the  extant  records  of  Eliza- 
beth's day  (and  what  are  extant  are  a  presumptive  clue  to  such  as  have 
disappeared)  point  directly  to  a  proprietary,  rather  than  any  other 
description  of  interest,  in  the  plays  and  poems  in  William  Shakespeare." 

We  give  a  portion  of  the  closing  paragraph  : 

*  *  *  "Having  lost  'our  Shakespeare'  both  to-day  and  forever, 
it  will  doubtless  remain — as  it  is — the  question,  'Who  wrote  the 
Shakespearean  dramas?'  The  evidence  is  all  in— the  testimony  is  all 
taken.  Perhaps  it  is  a  secret  that  even  Time  will  never  tell,  that  is 
hidden  down  in  the  crypt  and  sacristy  of  the  Past,  whose  seal  shall 
never  more  be  broken.  In  the  wise  land  of  China  it  is  said  that  where  a 
man  has  deserved  well  of  the  State,  his  countrymen  honor,  with  houses 
and  lands  and  gifts  and  decorations,  not  himself,  but  his  father  and  his 


—  79  — 

mother.  Perhaps,  learning  a  lesson  from  the  Celestials,  we  might  rear 
a  shaft  to  the  fathers  and  mothers  of  the  Immortality  that  wrote  the 
Book  of  Nature,  the  mighty  book  which  'age  can  not  wither,  nor 
custom  stale,'  and  whose  infinite  variety  for  three  centuries  has  been, 
and,  until  Time  shall  be  no  more,  will  be  close  to  the  hearts  of  every 
age  and  cycle  of  men — household  words  for  ever  and  ever.  The  Book 
— thank  heaven! — that  nothing  can  divorce  from    us." 

(Mr.  Appleton  Morgan,  whose  frequent  contributions  to 
this  controversy  will  be  found  mentioned  in  this  list,  is  a  grad- 
uate of  Racine  College,  Wisconsin,  class  of  1867.  He  is  at 
present  a  resident  of  New  York  City — by  profession,  an  attorney 
at  law.) 

148  Who  William  Shakespeare  Was.  Bv  David 
Graham  Adee,  of  Washington.  Two  articles  in 
the  Republic,  Washington,  D.  C,  October  29  and 
November  5,   1881.     3  columns. 

Pro-Sk. 

Mr.  Adee's  papers  give  the  contemporary  evidences  of 
Shakespeare's  authorship. 

149  The  Plays  of  Shakespeare.  By  David  Gra- 
HAJNi  Adee.  In  the  RcfubUc,  Washington,  D,  C, 
November  12,   1881.     3  columns. 

Pro-Sh. 

This  article  refers  only  incidentally  to  the  authorship. 

150  "The  Shakespearean  Myth."  [By  J.  G.  Pyle]. 
A  review  of  Mr.  Morgan's  book.  In  the  Pioneer 
Press,  St.  Paul,  Minnesota,  November  15,  1881. 
I    column. 

Anti-Sk. 

"Such  an  addition  as  this  volume  to  the  evidence  of  the  case 
against  Shakespeare,  is  a  noteworthy  event  in  the  literary  world. 
;s  *  *  Mr.  Morgan's  book,  gathering  up,  in  lawyer  fashion,  the 
scattered  threads  of  inconsistencies  and  improbabilities,  is  a  valuable 
and  welcome  addition  to  the  evidence  in  this  controversy.  *  *  * 
The  questions  raised  long  ago,  and  now  presented  in  form,  make  up 
an  indictment    which    ttie   Shakespearean   must   break   down   by   cogent 


—  8o  — 

explanations,  or  yield  to  the  growing  belief  that,  whether  the  'myriad- 
minded  '  Shakespeare  be  metaphor  or  fact,  he  never  wrote  all  that  has 
come  down  the  centuries  as  his,  to  rank  his  name  with  the  immortals." 

151  Reviews  and  Notices  of  Morgan's  Shake- 
spearean Myth.     In   the  journals  following: 

a — Sandusky  (O.)     Register,  November  15,   1881. 
b — Pittsburgh    Telegraph,  November  15,  1881. 
c — Cincinnati   Gazette,  November  15,   1881. 
d — Chicago  Inter-Ocean,  November  19,  1881. 
e — Sacramento  (Cal.)  Record-  Union,  ^o\ .  19,  1881. 
/- — Philadelphia  American,  November  26,  1881. 

Unc. 

152  A  Brief  AGAINST  Shakespeare.  \xv\\\^  Tribune, 
New  York,  November  25,   1881.      i  column. 

Pro-Sh. 
A  review  of  the    Myth  : 

«  «-  »  '<  The  presumption,  for  example,  that  Mr.  Appleton  Morgan 
is  the  author  of  the  book  before  us  is  so  strong,  so  overwhelming,  that 
nobody  living  will  entertain  the  thought  of  addressing  a  question  on  that 
point  to  the  publishers;  and  yet  we  have  absolutely  no  evidence  of  the 
fact,  except  the  implied  assertion  of  the  title-page ;  no  more  evidence, 
indeed — and  no  less — than  we  have  that  Shakespeare  wrote  the  plays 
thai  bear  his  name.  Three  hundred  years  hence  it  will  be  as  impossible 
to  prove  that  Mr.  Morgan  really  wrote  the  book,  as  it  is  now  to  prove 
that  Shakespeare  wrote  the  plays,  and  for  some  man  of  the  twenty- 
second  century  to  argue  that  some  other  lawyer  probably  wrote  it, 
merely  because  there  is  no  way  of  proving  that  the  alleged  is  the  real 
authorship,  will  be  no  more  illogical  than  Mr.  Morgan's  parallel  argu- 
ment in  the  Shakespeare    case    is." 

153  "The  Shakespearean  Myth."  A  review  of  Mr. 
Morgan's  book,  by  N.  H.  [Nathaniel  Holmes]. 
Printed  in  the  St.  Louis  Globe  Democrat,  Novem- 
ber 17,   1881.     i^  columns. 

Anti-Sh. 

"We  have  to  regret  that  the  author's  'scope'  did  not  allow  him  to 
bring  his  critical  abilities  to  bear  on  a  comparison  of  the  plays  with 
the    writings   of   Francis   Bacon.     Hidden   down    deep   in    the   crypt,   a 


'Dclian  diver'  like  him  miglit  possibly  find  the  key  that  would  unlock 
tht  principal  secret.  Not  that  he  appears  himself  so  much  to  controvert 
that  possibility — it  seems  not  to  have  come  within  his  historical  and 
circumstantial  point  of  view.      *  *      The  theory  that  manuscripts 

were  brought  to  the  theatre  by  sundry  authors,  to  be  scissored  and 
adapted  by  the  manager,  strikes  out  at  one  stroke,  or  tacitly  overlooks 
nearly  all  that  has  ever  been  peculiar  [std  generis),  extraordinary 
precious  and  wonderful  in  this  work  ;  *      *      it  leaves  them  open 

to  manifold  contributors,  as  if  such  a  thing  as  this  Shakespearean  drama 
really  is,  however  the  case  may  have  been  with  Homer,  or  the  psalms 
of  David,  were  at  all  possible  in  that  way;  and  we  are  strongly  inclined 
to  think  that  this  mode  of  creation  of  it.  though  perhaps  possible  to 
some  extent,  may  prove  to  be,  on  the  whole,  as  mythical  as  the  man 
William  himself." 

154  Dr.  Thomson's  Pamphlets.  A  notice  of  two  of 
the  pamphlets,  in  the  Freeman's  Journal^  DubHn, 
November   23,   1881. 

Unc. 

An  extract  from  this  will  be  found  under  title  121. 

155  Historical  Iconoclasts.  What  are  we  to  be- 
lieve ?  Joan  of  Arc,  William  Tell,  Marshal  Ney, 
Pocahontas,  Powhatan,  Captain  Kidd,  etc.  gone! 
Is  Shakespeare  to  follow  ?  B}^  John  W.  Bell. 
In  the  Toledo  (O.)  Blade,  December  4,  1881. 
\\  columns. 

Anti-Sh. 

The  tenor  of  this  article  is  sufficiently  indicated  by  the 
head-lines   given  above. 

156  Bacon  and  Shakespeare  on  Vivisection,  in 
reply  to  Dean  Plumptre.  By  W.  T.  [Dr.  Wil- 
liam Thomson.]  Melbourne,  becember  10,  1881. 
Pamphlet,  8vo.  pp.  39. 

Anti-Sh. 

Though  Dean  Plumptre's  paper  did  not  refer  to  the  ques- 
tion of  the  authorship,  Dr.  Thomson  answers  it  from  that 
standpoint. 


—  82  — 

157  Shakespeare  in  Amekika.  Eine  Literarhis- 
TORiscHE  Studie.  Voii  Kare  Knortz.  licrlin : 
Verlag  von  Theodor  Ilormann.  1882.  pp.  85. 
(Shakespeare  in  America.  A  Literary-his- 
torical Study.) 

Pro-Sh. 

This  book,  though  printed  in  Berlin,  is  really  an  Ameri- 
can work,  as  it  was  written  in  this  country.  Pages  29  to  41 
are  devoted  to  a  review  of  the  works  on  the  authorship  ques- 
tion. Mr.  Knortz  sums  up  his  conclusions  against  the  Baconian 
theory,  and  adds  : 

{Translation.)  "Yet  this  controversy  did  some  good;  it  induced 
the  public  to  give  more  attention  to  the  works  of  these  two  Englishmen ; 
but  it  especially  promoted  the  study  of   Shakespeare." 

(Karl  Knortz  is  well  known  as  the  author  of  several 
works  on  American  literature,  translations  of  American  poetry, 
etc. — for  the  most  part  printed  in  Germany.  He  resides  in 
New  York.) 

158  The  Political  Allegories  in  the  Renascence 
Drama  of  Francis  Bacon.  By  William  Thom- 
son, F.R.C.S.     Melbourne:  Sands  &  McDougall, 

1882.     Pamphlet,  pp.  46. 

Anti-Sh. 

Dr.  Thomson  here  carries  out  his  idea  of  the  political 
purpose,  alludes  to  the  forthcoming  Promus,  and  replies  to  his 
critics  of  the  Australian  press.  He  answers  Dr.  Stearns  at 
considerable  length,  and  recapitulates  and  expands  his  own 
arguments  as  to  Bacon's  authorship  of  the  Sonnets. 

159  Spedding's  Vindication  of  Bacon.  A  review 
of  "-Spedding's  Evenings  with  a  Reviewer;  or, 
Maeaiday  and  Baeon.''  By  R.  M.  Theobald. 
In  the  Nonconformist  and  Independent ,  London, 
Two  articles,  January  12,  1882;  and  January  26, 
1882.     5  columns. 

U71C. 


These  papers  contain  a  reference    to   the    Northumberland 
manuscripts. 

i6o  Notes  and  Qup:ries.  London.  Sixth  Series. 
Bacon's  Essex-Sonnet,  and  Thomson's  Renascence 
Drama.     By  Dr.  C.  M.  Ingleby.     v.  62,  January 

28,    1882. 

Pro-Sh. 

161  Reviews  and  Notices  of  Morgan's  Shake- 
spearean Myth  : 

a— Saturday   Review,  London,  January    28,   1S82. 
/^—Milwaukee  Sentinel,  February   12,   1882. 
^—Washington  Post,  April  24,    1882. 
^—Madison  (Wis.)  State  Journal,  July    22,   1882. 

Unc. 

162  Francis  Bacon  and  Shakespeare's  Plays.  In 
the  Oracle,  London,  February  4,  1882.     2  columns. 

Unc. 

This  is  in  answer  to  the  request  of  L.  J.  M.  for  informa- 
tion, and  gives,  in  a  short  form,  the  arguments  (evidently 
condensed  from  Vaile's  paper  in  Scribner)  used  to  support  the 
anti-Shakespearian  theory,  with  a  list  of  the  authorities. 

163  Query  4275.  In  Xotes  and  .Queries  column, 
Evening  Transcript,  Boston,  February   13,  1882. 

Unc. 

It  having  been  intmiated  that  Delia  Bacon  was  induced  to 
commence  her  investigations  through  a  fancied  relationship  to 
the  family  of  Lord  Bacon,  this  query  asked  for  information 
on  that  point.  The  answers,  five  in  number,  give  various 
references  and  authorities,  but  no  definite  answer  to  the  ques- 
tion. The  fact  seems  to  be  that  no  such  consanguinity  was 
ever  claimed. 


-84- 

164  Articles    in    Shakcspcariana,     in    the    L,ilc7'ary 
World,   Boston,  of  dates  following  : 

a — Letter  of  Appleton  Morgan,  with  answer,  Feb- 
ruary 25,    1882. 

b — "The  Bibliography   of  the   Bacon-Shakespeare 
Literature,"  October  21,   1882. 

Unc. 

165  Report  to  the  British  Museum  on  behalf  of 
the  Annals  of  Great  Britain  and  the  reign  of  Her 
Majesty  Qj.ieen  Victoria.  Discovery  and  opening 
of  the  cipher  of  Francis  Bacon,  Lord  Verulam, 
alike  in  his  prose  writings  and  the  "  Shakespere  " 
dramas,  proving  him  the  author  of  the  dramas. 
By  Mrs.  C.  F.  Ashmead  Windle.  San  Francisco: 
Jos.  Winterburn  &  Co.,  Printers,  1882.  (Printed 
for  the  author.)     Pamphlet,  pp.  40. 

Anti-Sh. 

Mrs.  Winule's  second  pamphlet.  We  would  rather  avoid 
any  mention  of  this  if  it  could  be  done  with  justice  to  the 
history  of  the  discussion.  The  following  extract  from  the 
article  (title  1  79),  on  the  author  and  her  latest  essay,  in  the 
San  Francisco  Chronicle  oi  August  20,  1882,  will  give  an  idea 
of  the  extraordinary  unreason  of  this  effusion: 

"The  text  of  this  irrational  essay  seems  to  have  been  the  passage  in 
Bacon's  De  Aiigme^itis  Scientiarum  on  Ciphers,  and  putting  this  to  the 
idea  of  allegory,  she  gets,  as  the  result,  the  belief  that  all  of  Shakspere's 
(Bacon's)  plays  are  written  in  cipher.  The  nature  of  that  cipher  is  a 
puzzler,  indeed;  it  is  cabalistic,  it  is  bi-lateral,  it  has  a  Biblical  aspect, 
it  is  prophetic,  it  is  under  a  spell,  it  is  commodious,  it  is  adroit,  and  it 
is  altogether  the  most  extraordinary  example  of  moonshine  and  vagary 
that  the  curious  could  wish  to  puzzle  over.  The  reader,  however,  had 
best  judge  for  himself  by  an  example  or  two.  The  title  of  every  play 
has  its  explanatory  catch.     That  of   Othello  is; 

A  tale,  oh  !    I  tell,  oh  ! 
Oh,  dell,  oh  !    What  wail,  oh  ! 
Oh,  hill,  oh  !    What  willow  ! 
What  hell,  oh!    What  will,  oh! 
At  will,  oh  !    At  well,  oh  ! 
1  dwell,  oh  ! 


-85- 

.'AU    the    characters    in     the     play    have     their    attendant    jingles. 
Dc^denuma  goes  'With  a  demon  A,  with  a    moan,  ah!'   and    means    the 
double  tragedy  of  Bacon's  muse;  and  Emilia  stands  with  'I'm  ill,  you,  I 
mill  you,'  and  refers  to  'the  expression  of  Bacon's  ill,  continued  m  play 
after  play,  as  milestones   of  his   life.'     All    the   characters   are   sphmxes 
and   riddle-mongers;  they  are  'related  cues'    to    everything    under    the 
sun,  and  it  all   means-nothing.     Similar   catches   and   symbols   are   re- 
peated in  all  the  plays.      Titus  Andronicus  has  : 
Tie  t'  us  and  drone  accuse  ; 
Tie  t'  us  and  drown  a  curse  ; 
Tie  t'  us  and  drum  the  news. 
"This  play  is   Bacon's  judgment  of  his  own  case,  since  Martius  means 
•March   you    us.'    and   refers   to   his   service;    Publius    means    'Publish 
us  '  and  refers  to  his  fame,  etc.     As  the  work  goes  on,  even   the  plays 
are  not  adhered  to,  and  Holy  Writ  and  Montaigne's  Essays  come  m  for 
an  equal   share   of  'explanation.'      If  by   this   time  the  value   of  Mrs. 
Windle's  discovery  is  not  apparent,  it  will  need  no    further   extracts   to 
know  that  too   close   an   application    to   'a   startling   exemplification    ,n 
philological  science'   has   wrought   its   mischief    and    unsettled    a    mind 
which,  with  proper  use.  might  have  produced  something  more  valuable 
and  less  pitiable  than  a  Cipher." 

i66     Notes  and  Queries.     London.     Sixth    Series. 
r/— Bacon   a  poet,  by  Henry  G.  Atkinson,  v,  205, 

March  18,   1882. 
/>— Answer    to    above,    by    Dr.     Ingleby,    v,    316, 

April  22,   1882. 
^_From  Dr.  Ingleby,  vi,  277,  September  30,  1882. 
^_From  Este,  vi,  416,  November  18,   1882. 
^_From  Dr.  Ingleby,  vi,  492,  December  16,  1882. 

Unc. 

167  Shylock's  Case.  By  Nathaniel  Holmes.  In 
Tullidge's  ^larterly  Magazine,  Salt  Lake,  Utah, 
April,  1882.     13  pages.  ^^^._^^^^ 

This  is  a  review  of  The  Struggle  for  Lato,  by  Dr.  Rudolph 
von  Ihering,  of  Gottingen,  who  manitains  that  injustice  was 
done  to  Shylock.  Judge  Holmes's  argument  is  that  the  writer 
of  the  Trial  Act  in  the  Merchant  of  Venice  was  a  skillful 
lawyer— in  fact,  Bacon  himself. 


—  86  — 

i68     "Morgan's  Shakespearean   Myth."     A   notice 

of  the    book  in  the    Westminster  Review,  London, 

April   I,   1882.     2  pages. 

Pro-Sh. 

169  Judge  Holmes  and  his  Great  Subject — Francis 
Bacon.  By  E.  W.  Tullidge.  In  Tjillidge's 
J^iarterly     Magazine,    Salt     Lake,     April,     1882. 

Antt-C)n. 

170  The  Bacon-Shakespeare  Literature.  By 
W.  H.  VV.  [W.  H.  Wyman].  In  the  Madison 
(Wis.)  State   yojirnal,  April  24,  1882.     5  columns. 

Pro-S/i. 

A  partial  Bibliograpliical  list  (25  titles),  with  some  account 
of  DeHa  Bacon,  and  an  outline  of  the  origin,  history,  and 
arguments  of  the  controversy. 


171  The  Biography  of  William  Shakespeare.  By 
F.  [Edward  Fillebrown,  Brookline,  Mass.]  In 
the  Brookline  Chronicle,  May  27,  1S82.      i   column. 

Anti-Sk. 

172  "The  Shakespearean  Myth."  ByR.  M.Theo- 
bald. In  the  Nonconformist  and  Independent , 
London,  June  i,   1882.     2  columns. 

Anti-Sh. 

A  comprehensive  and  favorable  review  of  the  Afyt/i  : 

"It  is  intended  to  prove  that  the  author  of  Shakespeare,  being  a 
scholar,  a  courtier,  a  lawyer,  master  of  all  the  knowledge  and  science 
of  his  age,  could  not  have  been  a  rustic  adventurer,  ill-educated,  un- 
traveled,  unfamiliar  with  court  life,  busy  in  making  money,  and  with 
no  time  for  self-culture.  Mr.  Morgan  is  unable  to  believe  this  amazing 
parodox,  and  accordingly  rejects  it." 


-87- 
177     TiiK  Gknius  AND  Mkthods  OF  Shakespeare.    By 
E    W    ^ruLLiDCK.     In    TuIHcIgcs  .^uirtcrly  Mag 
azinc,  Salt  Lake,  Utah,  July,   1882.     12  pages. 

Anti-Sh. 

,74  "The  Shakespearean  Myth."  Notice  of  Mor- 
gan's  book  in  the  British  Quarterly  Review,  Lon- 
don, July   I,   1882.  Pro-Sh. 

I7C  Bibliography  of  the  Bacon-Shakespeare  Lit- 
erature. Compiled  by  W.  H.  Wyman.  Svo. 
pp    8.     Cincinnati,  July   I,   1882.     63  titles. 

This  was  privately-printed,  and  contained  all  the  ascer- 
tained titles  up  to  the  time  of  issue.  The  present  Bibliography 
is  an  extension  of  it. 

176  Shakespeare,  Bacon  and  Christianity.  By 
Henry  G.  Atkinson.  In  the  Philosophic  In- 
quirer,  Madras,  India,  July  2,  1882.      i  column. 

Anti-Sh. 

177  Did  Shakespeare  write  his  own  works?  An 
editorial  article  in  the  Oshkosh  (Wis.)  Northzaestern, 
July  17,  1882.  Pro-Sh. 

The  Editor,  Gen.  T.  S.  Allen,  calls  attention  to  a  lecture 
by  the  late  Hon.  George  B.  Smith,  of  Madison,  Wisconsin, 
delivered  at  Chicago,  Madison,  and  other  places  a  few  years 
since.  Mr.  Smith's  lecture  was  never  prmted.  It  was  a 
forcible  presentation  of  the  Baconian  theory. 

178  An  Anti-Shakespearean  Plea.  By  J.  W.  B. 
[John  W.  Bell].  In  the  Madison  (Wis.)  State 
Journal,  July  22,   1882.      i    column.        ^^^^._^^^^^ 


Occasioned  by  the  Bibliographical  article  and  summary  in 
the  same  paper,   April  24,   1882. 

179  The  Bacon  Cipher.  The  ruin  it  wrought  on  a 
strong  intellect.  A  strange  discovery  in  Literature. 
In  the  San  Francisco  Chronicle^  August  20,  1882. 
(Copied  in  the  Cincinnati  Enqtdrer,  Sept.  19,  1882.) 

i^  columns. 

Unc. 

This  article  refers  to  Mrs.  Windle  and  her  writings.  An 
extract  from  it  will  be  found  in  connection  with  Mrs,  Ws 
second  pamphlet  (title  165). 

180  Query  4929.  In  Notes  and  ^leries  column  of 
the  Evening  Transcript,  Boston. 

a — Query    as   to    merits    of    the    question,    August 

21,   1882. 
h — Answers  to  above,  September  24,   1882. 

Unc. 

18  r  Bacon  as  a  man  of  Letters.  By  Henry  G. 
Atkinson.  In  the  Secular  Review,  London,  Sep- 
tember 23,   1882.     I   column. 

Anti-Sh. 

182  Notice   of  the  bibliography  of  the  discussion,  in 

the    Bibliographer,    London,    October    22,     1882, 

page    151. 

Pro-Sh. 

After  mentioning  the  early  authorities,  the  editor  says: 
"  but  before  this  we  believe  an  Englishman  lectured  to  such 
people  as  would  listen  to  him  on  his  theory  that  Shakespeare's 
plays  were  written  by  the  monks." 

183  Shakespeare,  Bacon  and  Free  Thought.  By 
Henry  G.  Atkinson,  in  the  National  Reformer, 
London,  October  22,   1882. 

Anti-Sh. 


-89- 

184  Some  Shakespearean  Commentators.  By  Ap- 
PLETON  Morgan.  Cincinnati :  Robert  Clarke  & 
Co.,  1882.     Fifty  copies  printed  for  sale.     Pamphlet, 

i2mo.  pp.  44. 

Anti-Sh. 

This  pamphlet  is  a  general  answer  by  Mr.  Morgan  to  the 
criticisms  of  the  Shakespearean  Myth.  The  following  extract 
from  a  summary  of  it  will  indicate  some  of  the  points  made 
by  the  author : 

"So  far  from  being  new-fangled,  a  doubt  as  to  what  were  Shake- 
speare'a  plays  and  poems  is  as  old  as  the  first  folio  itself;  that  the  name 
was  often  pirated,  and  the  piracies  often  detected ;  that  there  was  a 
statute  in  Elizabeth's  day  that  would  have  operated  to  forbid  the  pub- 
lication of  plays  without  being  first  editorially  scrutinized  ;  that  these 
plays  must  have  had  an  editor  or  editors,  as  well  as  an  author  or  au- 
thor. ;  and  that  if  produced  anonymously,  it  was  much  more  likely  that 
they  should  pass  by  their  editors'  then  by  their  authors'  names.  Further, 
that  instead  of  laying  this  question  at  rest,  the  labors  of  the  Shake- 
speareans  are  only  emphasizing  it,  and  adding  to  its  difficulty." 

The  Milwaukee  Sentinel  (title  202)  has  this  in  its  summary: 
"In  the  present  treatise  Mr.  Morgan  simply  recapitulates  some  of 
his  previous  statements  ;  touches  at  some  length  on  the  general  absurd- 
ity of  Edmond  Malone ;  discusses  the  views  of  Wm.  J.  Rolfe,  James 
Fy.;eman  Clarke,  Henry  N.  Hudson,  and  Dr.  Ingleby  ;  and  finally  pro- 
ojeds  to  review  several  disagreeable  reviewers,  each  one  of  whom,  Mr. 
Ivlorgan  intimates,  through  a  very  pithy  quotation  from  Huxley, 
'acquired  his  knowledge  from  the  book  he  judges— as  the  Abyssinian 
is  said  to  provide  himself  with  steaks   from    the  ox  who  carries  him.'" 

185     The    Absurdity    of    the    Theory    that    Lord 

Bacon  wrote  the  plays   of   Shakespeare.     By 

J.  Wilson  Ross.      In   Modern   Thought,  London, 

for  December,  1882.     4  pages. 

Pro-Sh. 

r86     The  Authorship  of  Shakespeare.     By  Henry 
G.  Atkinson.     In  the  National  Reformer,  London, 

December  31,   1882. 

Anti-Sh. 


—  90  — 

187  The  Promus  of  Formularies  and  Elegancies 
(being  Private  Notes,  circ.  1594,  hitherto  unpub- 
lished) by  Francis  Bacon,  ilkistrated  and  ehicidated 
by  passages  from  Shakespeare.  By  Mrs.  Henry 
Pott.  With  preface  by  E.  A.  Abbott,  D.D., 
Head  Master  of  the  City  of  London  School,  1S83. 
London :  Longmans,  Green  &  Co.  Boston : 
Houghton,  Mifflin  &  Co.   (with  fac-simile  sheet  of 

Promus).     Svo.  pp.  628. 

Anti-Sh. 

This  book  is  the  latest  important  contribution  to  the 
Baconian  theory. 

The  MSS.  known  as  the  Fromus  form  a  part  of  the  Har- 
leian  Collection  in  the  British  Museum,  and  have  never  before 
been  published.  They  consist  of  fifty  sheets  or  foHos,  nearly 
all  in  the  hand-writing  of  Bacon,  containing  1655  different 
entries  or  memorandums.  The  whole  seems  to  have  been 
kept  by  Bacon  as  a  sort  of  commonplace  book,  in  which  he 
entered  at  different  times  brief  forms  of  expression,  phrases, 
proverbs,  verses  from  the  Bible;  and  quotations  from  Seneca, 
Horace,  Virgil,  Erasmus,  and  many  other  writers.  These  are 
in  various  languages— English,  French,  Italian,  etc.  As  to 
the  use   of  this   collection,    we  give    Mrs.  Pott's   explanation: 

"The  Fromus^  then,  was  Bacon's  shop  or  storehouse,  from  which 
he  would  draw  forth  things  new  and  old — turning,  twisting,  expanding, 
modifying,  changing  them,  with  that  '  nimbleness '  of  mind,  that  'apt- 
ness to  perceive  analogies,'  which  he  notes  as  being  neces.sary  to  the 
inventor  of  aphorisms,  and  which,  elsewhere,  he  speaks  of  decidedly, 
though  modestly,  as  gifts  with  which  he  felt  himself  to  be  specially 
endowed. 

''  It  was  a  storehouse  also  of  pithy  and  suggestive  sayings,  of  new, 
graceful,  or  quaint  terms  of  expression,  of  repartee,  with  bright  ideas 
jotted  down  as  they  occurred,  and  which  were  to  reappear,  'made-up,' 
variegated,  intensified,  and  indefinitely  multiplied,  as  they  radiated  from 
that  wonderful  '  brayne  cut  with  many  facets.' " 

Mrs.  Pott  believes  that  Bacon  prepared  these  notes  for  use 
in  his  literary  works,  and  she  elaborates  her  theory  that  Bacon 
wrote  "Shakespeare"  by  taking  up  in  review  the  whole  of 
the  1655  entries,  and  citing,  by  the  thousand,  what  she  claims 


—  91  — 

to  be  parallel  thoughts  and  passages  in  the  plays.  To  prove 
that  the  forms  of  expression  used  in  the  Promus  are  not  con- 
tained in  contemjjorary  or  precedent  literature,  the  author 
gives,  in  an  appendix,  a  list  of  upwards  of  five  thousand 
works  which  she  has  exammed  for  that  purpose  and  in  which 
she  claims  they   are   almost   unknown. 

"It  must  be  held,  then,  that  no  sufficient  explanation  of  the  resem- 
blances which  have  been  noted  between  the  writings  of  Bacon  and 
Shakespeare  is  afforded  by  the  supposition  that  these  authors  may  have 
studied  the  same  sciences,  learned  the  same  languages,  read  the  same 
books,  frequented  the  same  sort  of  society.  To  satisfy  the  requirements 
of  such  a  hypothesis,  it  will  be  necessary  further  to  admit  that  from 
their  scientific  studies  these  two  men  derived  identically  the  same 
theories;  from  their  knowledge  of  languages  the  same  proverbs,  turns 
of  expression,  and  peculiar  use  of  words;  that  they  preferred  and 
chiefly  quoted  the  same  books  in  the  Bible  and  the  same  authors;  and 
last,  not  least,  that  they  derived  from  their  education  and  surroundings 
the  same  tastes  and  the  same  antipathies,  and  from  their  learning,  in 
whatever  way  it  was  acquired,  the  same  opinions  and  the  same  subtle 
thoughts. 

"  We  should  almost  have  to  bring  ourselves  to  believe  that  Bacon 
took  notes  for  the  use  of  Shakespeare,  since  in  the  Promus  may  be 
found  several  hundred  notes  of  which  no  trace  has  been  discovered  in 
the  acknowledged  writings  of  Bacon,  or  of  any  contemporary  writer 
but  Shakespeare,  but  which  are  more  or  less  clearly  reproduced  in  the 
plays,  and  sometimes  in  the  Sonnets. 

"Such  things,  it  must  be  owned,  pass  all  ordinary  powers  of  belief, 
and  the  comparison  of  points  such  as  those  which  have  been  hinted  at 
impress  the  mind  with  a  firm  conviction  that  Francis  Bacon,  and  he 
alone,  wrote  all  the  plays  and  sonnets  which  are  attributed  to  Shake- 
speare, and  that  William  Shakespeare  was  merely  the  able  and  jovial 
manager,  who,  being  supported  by  some  of  Bacon's  rich  and  gay  friends 
(such  as  Lord  Southampton  and  Lord  Pembroke),  furnished  the  theatre 
for  the  due  representation  of  the  plays,  which  were  thus  produced  by 
Will.   Shakespeare,  and  thenceforward  called  by  his  name." 

(Mrs.  Pott  resides  in  London.  This  book,  to  which 
she  has  devoted  many  years  of  labor,  is,  we  believe,  her 
only  literary  work.  But  it  is  understood  that  she  has  another 
work  in  preparation,  devoted  to  the  historical  side  of  the 
question,  which  will  probably  appear  within  a  few  months,  under 
the  title  of  "  Francis  Bacon,  Poet,  Philosopher,  and  Dratnaiist."') 


—  92  — 

i88     Articles    in    Shakesfeariana ,    in    the    Literary 

Worlds  Boston,  of  dates  following : 

a — Letter  from  Appleton  Morgan,  Jan.  13,   1883. 

b — Bacon's  Provitis,  Januar}?-  27,   1883. 

Unc. 

189  Was  Bacon  Shakespeare?  The  New  Evidences 
from  the  Harleian  Collection.  In  the  Advertiser, 
Boston,  January  13,  1883.  (Copied  in  the  Tri- 
bune^   Chicago,   January    20,    1883.)     i^   columns. 

Unc. 

190  The   Promus,    etc.      [By  Richard  J.    Hintox]. 

In    the    Gazette,  Washington,  D.   C,  January    14, 

1883.      I   column. 

Anti-Sh. 

A  mention  of  the  Promus,  with  a  sketch  of  Mr.  O'Con- 
nor's "Harrington"  theories,  and  some  reminiscences  of 
Delia  Bacon. 

191  Bacon's  Notes  in  Shakespeare's  Plays.  In 
the  World,  New  York,  Jan.  15,  1883.     i^  columns. 

Pro-Sh. 
A   review   of  the    Promus : 

"  Mrs.  Pott  has  really  made  the  most  important,  because  it  is  the 
most  direct  and  scientific,  contribution  to  the  Baconian  side  of  the  con- 
troversy, but  her  book  does  little  to  confirm  any  theory  except  the 
theory  that  great  minds  think  alike." 

192  Bacox-Shakespeare.       By    Rev.    Edward     C. 

Towxe.     a  series  of  three  articles  in  the    Boston 

Evening  Transcript.  ]Q.nuciry   19,  23,  and   25,  1883. 

3  columns  each. 

Pro-Sh. 

In  these  papers  are  comprised  a  very  complete  general 
review  of  the  whole  subject;  an  account  of  the  various 
theories  and  the  books  containing  them;  and  a  comparison 
of  the  intellect,  character  and  writings  of  Bacon  and  Shake- 
speare.    A   short  extract  as  to   style : 


—  93  — 

"  Bacon's  style  is  stiff  and  weighty,  where  Shakespeare's  is  free  and 
light.  Bacon  is  classical,  while  Shakespeare  is  natural.  Bacon  has 
always  the  same  formal  mode  of  expression,  his  own  mode  only,  even 
if  he  tries  to  write  dialogues  and  to  represent  characters  ;  while  Shake- 
speare easily  introduces  a  high  variety— always,  too,  in  character.  The 
hand  that  wrote  the  plays  could  easily  have  imitated  Bacon,  but  there 
is  not  a  page  of  Shakespeare  which  Bacon  could  have  written.  The 
style  of  Shakespeare  is  as  impossible  to  Bacon  as  violets  to  a  pump- 
kin vine,  or  tea  roses  to  a  prize  cabbage.  The  one  was  the  most 
prosaic  of  classical  writers,  a  Latinist  more  than  an  English  writer ;  while 
the  other  was  as  thoroughly  English  as  he  was  perfectly  poetical." 

193  The  New  Literary  Conundrum.  Was  it  Shake- 
speare or  Bacon?  The  Story  the  Phiys  tell.  A 
letter  in  the  New  York  correspondence  of  the 
Evening  Post,  Hartford,  Conn.,  January  20,  1883. 

2    columns.  _ 

Pro-Sh. 

194  A  Minute  Among  the  Amenities.  (Ad  fnem). 
By  William  Thomson,  Garnoch,  South  Yarra, 
Melbourne,  Feb.  i,   1883.     Pamphlet,  8vo.  pp.  24. 

Anti-Sh. 

The  amenities  in  this  are  undiscoverable.  Dr.  Thomson, 
in  his  peculiar  style,  answers  his  critics  of  the  Leader,  the 
Argus,  the  Academy  and  the  Australasian,  claiming  that  he 
was  denied  a  hearing  in  those  periodicals,  and  forced  to  reply 
in  a  pamphlet.  His  ad  finem  was  prophetic,  as  it  was  his 
last  work. 

195  A   New   Shakesperian   Commentary.      Review 

of  the  Promtis.     In  the  Saturday  Review,  London, 

February  3,  1883.     2  columns. 

Pro-Sh. 

"  It  appears  that,  having  been  engaged  for  many  years  in  proving 
'from  internal  evidence  Bacon's  authorship  of  the  plays  known  as  Shake- 
speare's,' Mrs.  Pott's  attention  was  called  to  these  manuscripts  by  some 
remarks  made  by  Mr.  Spedding  in  his  edition  of  Bacon's  works.  These 
remarks  led  Mrs.  Pott  to  suppose  that  a  further  examination  might  pro- 
duce corroborative  evidence  of  the  points  she  was  laboring  to  establish. 


—  94  — 

This  hope  has  been  fulfilled,  she  considers,  '  to  a  degree  beyond  expec- 
tation,' and  the  notes,  she  adds,  '  whatever  may  be  the  views  taken 
of  the  commentary  upon  them,  possess  in  themselves  a  value  which 
must  be  recognized  by  all  the  students  of  language.'  *  *  *  That 
she  has  been  instrumental  in  producing  an  extremely  interesting  volume, 
as  everything  must  be  interesting  that  contributes  in  any  way  to  our 
knowledge  of  such  a  man  as  Bacon,  we  allow,  and  for  so  much,  as  we 
have  said,  we  tender  her  our  most  hearty  thanks;  but  that  its  publica- 
tion tends  in  any  way  to  establish  her  theory — of  the  theory  itself  it  is 
quite  unnecessary  to  speak — we  do  no  less  heartily  deny." 

196  The  Promus  of  Formularies  and  Elegancies. 

A    review    in    the   Athcnceiini,    London,    February 

3,  1883.     3  columns. 

Pro-Sk. 

197  Bacon  and  Shakespeare.  An  article  on  the 
Promus  from  the  Courant,  Hartford,  February  7, 
1883.  (Copied  in  the  Record,  Philadelphia,  Feb- 
ruary 12,  1883.)     I  column. 

Unc. 

198  Was  Lord  Bacon  the  Author  of  Shake- 
speare's Plays?  A  communication  in  the  Sun, 
New  York,  copied  in  the  Tribune,  Denver,  Col- 
orado, February  17,   1883. 

Unc. 

199  Bacon's  Promus.  By  A.  A.  A.  [Hon.  Alvey  A. 
Adee,  of  Washington,  D.  C]  In  the  Republic, 
Washington,  February  17,   1883.     8  columns. 

Pro-Sh. 

A  very  complete  and  comprehensive  critique  of  the 
Promus.  Mr.  Adee  thinks  the  work  valuable  to  the  philolo- 
gist rather  than  as  a  confirmation  of  the  Baconian  theory. 
"The  lovers  of  the  works,"  he  says,  "  which,  to  adopt  a  favor- 
ite phrase  of  the  Baconians,  'go  about'  under  the  name  of 
Shakespeare,  owe  a  debt  of  gratitude  to  this  untiring  delver 
in  a  new  and  rich  mine  of  virgin  ore  for  her  painstaking 
contribution   to  the  general  knowledge."     He  takes  up  in  re- 


—  95  — 

view  a  large  number  of  the  Proiims  entries;  {Questions  the 
correctness  of  many  of  Mrs.  Pott's  citations,  and  differs 
from  her  entirely  as  to  their  value  as  parallelisms  in  prov- 
ing  the    Baconian    authorship. 

"A  critical,  and  above  all,  impartial  and  unbiased  revision  of  this 
work,  with  the  single  aim  of  selecting  only  such  passages  of  the  Poet's 
work  as  shall,  by  their  context  and  their  true  spirit  and  intent,  be  found 
to  present  unquestionable  analogy  with  the  Promus  entries,  would  give 
invaluable  aid  to  the  earnest  student.  It  would  not  be  venturesome  to 
assert  that,  in  such  a  case,  the  4404  parallelisms  discerned  by  Mrs. 
Pott  would  shrink  to  a  much  more  manageable  number.  Nor  would  it 
be  hazardous  to  surmise  that  a  like  impartial  re-reading  of  the  six 
thousand  works  through  which  Mrs.  Pott  has  labored  in  vain  would 
be  rewarded  with  the  discovery  of  analogies  which  have  escaped  her 
toilsome  scrutiny.  It  would,  perhaps,  be  unkind  to  hint  that,  while  the 
most  dis'.ant  allusions  and  constructions  found  in  the  Poet's  canon  have 
been  seized  upon,  nothing  short  of  practical  identity  would  seem  to 
have  been  admitted  in  the  case  of  parallelisms  between  the  Promus  and 
other  precedent  or  contemporary  writings.  But  an  impression  that  this 
is  the  Darwinian  law  of  selection  which  has  governed  the  survival  of 
the  fittest  phrases  for  the  purpose  in  hand,  must  inevitably  grow  on  the 
unprejudiced  mind  of  the  reader. 

"  Of  making  books,  or  rather  of  Mrs.  Pott's  manner  of  making 
books,  there  is  no  end.  Given  commonplace  texts,  time,  patience,  the 
power  of  reaching  conclusions  '  by  sudden  flight,'  and  a  Concordance — 
and  '  'tis  as  easy  as  lying.'  As  honest  Touchstone  says  :  '  I'll  rhyme 
you  so  eight  years  together,  dinners  and  suppers  and  sleeping  hours  ex- 
cepted ;  it  is  the  right  butter-women's  rank  to  market.' 

"Still,  Mrs.  Pott's  book  is  a  step  in  the  right  direction,  and  serves 
a  good  turn.  It  may  not  instantly  convince  the  world  that  Bacon 
wrote  Shakespeare,  or  even  that  Shakespeare  wrote  the  Ptonius^  as  Dr. 
Abbott  seems  to  insinuate,  but  the  insight  it  gives  into  structural 
peculiarities    and  turns   of  speech  is  well-nigh    priceless.      *  *     As 

regards  the  analogies  and  parallelisms  sought  to  be  shown,  the 
kindest  course  is  to  say  as  little  as  possible  about  them." 

200     Shakespeare  and  Bacon.     Judge  Holmes  gives 

his  i-easons   for  believing  Bacon  was  Shakespeare. 

And  Father  Higgins,  S.  J.,  gives  his  for  thinking 

Shakespeare  w^as  himself.     In  the  Republican^  St. 

Louis,  Feb.    17,   1883.      i   column. 

Unc. 


-96- 

An  account  of  two  interviews,  called  out  by  the  publica- 
tion of  the  Promus.  The  first  is  with  Judge  Holmes,  who 
claims  that  the  received  accounts  of  Shakespeare's  life  do  not 
warrant  the  supposition  of  his  authorship,  and  continues: 

"  To  this  is  opposed  the  supposition  that  the  plays  were  written  by 
one  [Bacon]  whose  mind  was  well  disciplined  from  early  infancy,  whose 
life  was  spent  in  the  prosecution  of  the  deepest  and  most  important 
studies  known  to  man,  with  results  of  the  greatest  magnitude  produced 
in  whatever  path  his  genius  may  have  chosen  for  itself  to  tread.  He 
was  surrounded  by  influences  the  most  cultured,  and  those  most  likely 
to  give  him  insight  into  the  lives  of  the  great,  which  is  so  prominent 
a  feature  in  the  plays  which  give  rise  to  the  controversy  ;  and  yet  he 
possessed,  from  the  positions  of  trust  which  he  held,  every  opportunity 
for  looking  into  and  examining  the  motives  for  action,  even  amongst 
the  most  lowly.  In  the  plays  as  we  have  them  there  occur  numberless 
passages,  referring  to  classical  authors,  the  Latin,  the  Greek,  the  Italian, 
the  German,  the  French  and  the  Spanish,  and  these  references  are  not 
such  as  could  be  learned  from  translation,  for  many  of  those  found  in 
these  plays  are  there  for  the  first  time  expressed  in  the  English  lan- 
guage. Is  it  at  all  likely  one  of  whom  Ben  Jonson  wrote  that  he  knew 
'  little  Latin  and  less  Greek,'  could  by  any  possibility  have  picked  up 
in  his  rather  shambling  career,  the  familiarity  with  these  authors  which 
the  plays  set  forth?" 


Rev.  Father  Higgins,  of  the  St.  Louis  University,  takes 
the  opposite  view.     We   give  one  point  only  : 

"There  is  another  objection  to  the  Baconian  claim  which  is  of  much 
weight.  The  author  of  the  dramas  was  either  a  Catholic  or  one  whose 
early  mind  had  been  imbued  with  Catholic  ideas.  If  there  be  any  one 
religion  which  is  supported  by  the  plays  it  is  the  Catholic  faith.  You 
remember  the  passage  in  Hamlet  concerning  the  time  in  which  the  mass 
is  celebrated,  and  in  other  places  he  refers  pointedly  to  a  purgatory. 
If  Lord  Bacon  wrote  the  plays  these  passages  could  never  have  occurred, 
since  his  position  in  regard  to  the  events  which  were  happening  at  that 
time,  and  which  had  already  happened,  would  have  made  him  anxious 
to  blot  owt  all  remembrances  of  the  customs  of  the  religion  which  was 
in  such  disfavor  at  the  court.  Shakespeare  may  not  have  been  a  Catholic, 
though  there  are  other  things  which  point  to  his  so  being,  but  at  least 
in  the  position  which  he  held  he  would  have  had  no  reasons  such  as 
existed  in  Bacon's  mind  for  trampling  out  traditions,  which  he  has  only 
fastened  more  closely  in  men's  minds,  and  has  done  so  in  a  very  beau- 
tiful manner." 


—  97  — 

20I     Gammon  of  Bacon.     In  the  London  Punch,  Feb- 
ruary 17,  1883. 

Pro-Sh. 

Occasioned  by  the  publication  of  the  Promtis  : 

"Scene — Lord  Bacon's  library.  Bacon  recumbent  and  n:editating 
as  usual  ['Sic  Sedebat')^  in  his  arm-chair. 

Bacon — The  proof  of  the  pudding  lieth  in  the  eating  and  experi- 
ment, and  not  in  the  supposition  or  imagination  thereof.  {A  gentle  tap 
at  the  door.)  Come  in!  (£'«/'<!'r  Shakespeare.)  What,  Will!  Thou 
art  right  welcome.  Sit  thee  down,  Will.  (Shakespeare  sits.)  And 
now,   how  doth  business  at  the  Globe?     How  goeth  our  HafnUt ? 

Shakespeare — Indifferent  well,  my  Lord. 

Bacon — Why,  so.     Playest  thou  the   C^^j/ still? 

Shakespeare — Aye,  my  good  Lord,  even  yet,  at  times,  so  please 
you. 

Bacon — It  pleases  me  well.  Talk  of  your  Ghost,  doth  the  Ghost  at 
the  G.  continue  to  walk  as  he  ought  ? 

Shakespeare — Punctually,  my  Lord,  in  good  sooth,  every  Saturday 
night. 

Bacon — Good.  I  will  therefore  thank  thee  to  hand  me  over  the 
balance  of  our  little  account. 

Shakespeare — I  shall,  my  Lord,  incontinently.  Meanwhile,  so 
please  your  Lordship,  I  must  become  yet  further  your  Lordship's 
debtor  for  the  wealth,  I  mean  the  workmanship,  of  your  wit.  My  Lord, 
Her  Majesty  the  Queen  did  last  night  come  to  see  Henry  the  Fourth. 
After  the  play  she  called  me  to  her  presence,  and  did  declare  her 
pleasure  that  I  should  produce  her  a  piece,  with  a  part  for  Falstaff,  and 
therein  present  Falstaff  in  love. 

Bacon — How  didst  thou  answer  her? 

Shakespeare — In  your  Lordship's  own  words — 'I  shall  in  all  my 
best  obey  you.  Madam.' 

Bacon — And  what  then  said  she? 

Shakespeare  —  Straightway  capped  your  line,  my  Lord,  saying, 
'  Why  'tis  a  loving  and  a  fair  reply.' 

Bacon — Long  live  tke  Queen !  But,  Falstaff  in  love !  A  most 
inconceivable  suggestion  and  unimaginable  fancy  of  Her  Most  Gra- 
cious Majesty's,  in  respect  both  of  love  and  of  Falstaff. 

Shakespeare — But  how,  then,  my  Lord,  may  we  in  anywise  manage 
to  perform  her  Royal  command  ? 

Bacon — About  my  brains!  Methinks  I  seem  to  spy  some  glimmer 
of  a  way.  A  gross  fat  man  fallen  into  the  conceit  that  some  fair  dame 
is  enamoured  of  him,  lured  on  to  make  love  to  her  after  his  own  fashion. 
Falstaff  in  love  c'y  pres^  as  we  say  at  W' estminster. 


Shakespeare — That  would  serve,  my  Lord. 

Bacon — Falstaff  thereto  licfooled,  moreover,  by  the  contrivance  of 
some  merry  women.  Merry?  H.i !  So!  Why,  certainly  it  seems  to 
myself  that  all  this  hath  passed  through  my  mind  before  — as  we  do 
sometimes  feel.  1  must  have  dreamt  of  writing  such  a  play.  Methinks 
I  even  recollect  the  name  on't.  Merry !  Yea,  marry,  quotha — Merry 
Wives  of  Windsor. 

Shakespeare — A  title  passing  good,  my  Lord,  and  a  taking.  Truly, 
a  happy  thought. — Let  me  pray  your  Lordship  about  it  presently. 

Bacon — Marry  and  shall,  with  all  the  expedition  I  may.  As  soon 
as  possible,  I'll  send  it  to  thy  playhouse. 

Shakespeare — A  thousand  thanks,  my  Lord. 

Bacon — In   the  meantime,   I  prithee  forget   not  that  small  balance. 

Shakespeare — Trust  me,  my  Lord. 

Bacon — Needs  must  I  until  thou  render  me  the  needful. 

Shakespeare  — Your  Lordship  shall  be  straightway  satisfied.  I 
humbly  take  my  leave."     \Exit  Shakespeare.] 

202  Shakespearean  Controversy.  Appleton  Mor- 
gan's Valiant  Fight  with  the  Shakespeareans.  In 
the    Sentinel,    Milwaukee,    February    i8,    1883.     i 

column. 

Anti-Sh. 

203  Shakespearean  Parallels.    By  A.  A.  A.  [Hon. 

Alvey  a.  Adee].     In  the  Republie,  Washington, 

February  24,  1883.     5  columns. 

P)-o-Sh. 

In  this  article,  apropos  of  the  "parallelisms"  of  Judge 
Holmes  and  Mrs.  Pott,  the  writer  says: 

•'Theorists  such  as  these  appear  to  lose  sight  of  the  circumstance 
that,  in  the  limitless  mines  of  human  knowledge,  there  are  ideas  so  sim- 
ple and  trite  in  themselves,  so  natural  to  all  minds,  that  their  recurrence 
in  varying  setting,    through   successive  ages,  is  a  foregone  conclusion." 

The  writer  takes  the  Imitation  of  Christ,  by  Thomas-a-Kem- 
l)is  (the  first  translation  into  English  being  printed  by  Wynkyn 
de  Worde  in  1502)  as  an  illustration,  and  finds  many  striking 
analogies  and  parallelisms  with  the  plays  of  Shakespeare,  a  few 
of  which  he  gives.  He  adds  that  "treated  as  Dr.  Holmes  has 
treated  Bacon's  works,  the  alleged  identities  may  be  made 
almost  countless."     We  quote  from  the  concluding  paragraphs: 


—  99  — 

"  It  is  a  relief  to  lay  down  the  cap  and  l)ells,  and  cast  the  cocks'- 
comb  truncheon  aside,  and  look  for  a  moral  to  point  this  idle  tale. 
What  is  it?  Simply  this,  that  the  fount  of  commonplace  is  inexhaust- 
ible from  generation  to  generation,  and  that  whosoever  dippeth  therein, 
whether  with  a  golden  goblet  or  a  pipkin  of  common  clay,  whether  he 
be  a  Thomas-a-Kempis,  a  Shakespeare,  or  a  Tupper,  brings  up,  after 
all,  but  triteness  and  commonplace.  What  wonder,  then,  that  parallels 
abound  in  the  writings  of  all  times? 

"  And  yet  it  must  be  confessed  that  to  many  readers,  whose  reason 
cannot  penetrate  the  mere  mask  of  words  and  discern  behind  it  the 
mystery  of  style,  the  soul  that  fills  the  form  with  the  breath  of  su- 
premest  life,  this  analysis  by  parallels  may  be  misleading,  even  to  a  sense 
of  partial  conviction.      To  such  can  only  be   said,  in    the   words  of  the 

ever-living  Poet : 

"O  place,  O  form  ! 
How  often  dost  thou  with  thy  case,  thy  habit, 
Wrench  awe  from  fools,  and  tie  the  wiser  souls 
To  thy  false  meaning." 

[Measure  for  Measure,   II,  iv,  12.) 

204  To  Certain  Theorists.     A  sonnet.     By  W.  L. 

Shoemaker.     In  Shakcspeartana,  in  the  Literary 

World,  Boston,  February  24,  1883. 

Pro-Sh. 

Mr.  Shoemaker's  sonnet  is  the  only  poetry  yet  discovered 
in  this  prosaic  controversy  : 

"Still  must  I  hear  the  noise  of  those  who  claim 

That  Shakespeare  was  not  Shakespeare,  but  was  Bacon  !  — 
Seeking  from  him  by  whom  the  sta^e  was  shaken 

With  mightiest  buskin,  to  filch  all  his  fame. 

O  bats  and  owls,  how  impotent  your  aim  ! 
How  purblind,  by  a  little   Promus  taken. 
Drowsing  yourselves  to  think  the  world  to  waken, 

To  exalt  the  courtier,  and  the  player  to  shame  ! 

Our  "Star  of  Poets"   did  not  Jonson  know, 

And  praise  in  lines  that  well  your  prate  confute, 
And  put  your  feminine  theories  to  scorn? 

Yea;  spite  of  Greene  and  every  later  foe, 

His  shade  serene  smiles  at  the  senseless  bruit- 
Greatest  in  drama  of  all  souls  yet  born." 

205  Shakespeare's    Geheimnisz    und  Bacon's   Pro- 
mus.     In   the  AUcrcmeine  Zeilung,    Stuttgart  and 

Munchen:  March  i,  1883.     4  columns. 

Anti-Sh. 


The  first  German  article.  A  translation  of  this  title  will 
be  found  below. 

206  Shakespeare's  Secret  and  Bacon's  "  Promus." 

An  article  in  the  Allgemeine  Zeitung  of  March  i, 

1883.      Translated   from    the  German,  and  printed 

by  special  request.     Price  three  pence.     H.  Wills, 

Printer,  Loughborough,  England.    Pamphlet,  i2mo. 

pp.  12. 

Anti-Sh. 

This  article  is  anonymous.  It  is  nominally  a  review  of 
the  Promus,  but  discusses  the  question  generally,  and  is  most 
vehemently  Baconian  throughout : 

"  In  the  eyes  of  the  masses  [in  England]  Shakespeare  passes  for  a 
supernatural  being.  He  who  doubts  of  his  divinity  is  guilty  of  high 
treason,  or  even  of  blasphemy. 

''Such  prejudice  is  unknown  in  America.  There  it  has  long  been 
accepted  as  an  acknowledged  fact  that  Bacon  wrote  the  Shakespearean 
dramas." 

207  Shakespeare  v.  Bacon.  A  review  of  the  Pro- 
mus in  the  Spectator^  London,  March  3,  1883. 
2  columns. 

Pro-Sh. 

208  Dr.  Edwin  A.  Abbott,  Mrs.  Henry  Pott,  and 
Lord  Bacon.  In  the  St.  ya/ncs's  Gazel/e,  Lon- 
don, March  10,  1883.     i  page. 

Pro-S/t. 

209  Mrs.  Pott  on  Shakespeare's  Women.  In 
Shakes f car iana,  in  the  Literary  World,  Boston, 
March  10,   1883. 

a — Note    from    A.  A.  A.    [Adee]    on  the   Promus. 

Pro-Sh. 

Mr.  RoLFE  takes  issue  with  Mrs.  Pott  as  to  her  opinions 
of  Shakespeare's  women,  and  quotes  from  a  foot-note  on  i)age 
479  of  the  fromus: 


lOI   


"  From  the  entries  which  referred  to  women  we  see  that  Bacon 
formed  very  unfavorable  views  regarding  them,  views  which  unhappy 
passages  in  his  own  life  probably  tended  to  confirm.  The  Shakespeare 
Plays  seem  to  exhibit  the  same  unfavorable  sentiments  of  their  author. 
There  are  130  female  personages  in  the  Plays,  and  the  characters  of 
these  seem  to  be  easily  divisible  into  six  classes: 

"  I.  Furies  or  viragoes,  such  as  Tamora,  Queen  Margaret,  Goneril, 
Regan,  and  even  Lady  Macbeth  in  the  dark  side  of  her  character. 

"2.  Shrews  and  sharp-tongued  women,  as  Katherine,  Constance, 
and  many  others,  when  they  are  represented  as  angry. 

"3.  Gossiping  and  untrustworthy  women,  as  most  of  the  maids 
hostesses,  etc.,  and  as  Percy  insinuates  that  he  considers  his  wife  to  be. 

"4.  Fickle,  faithless,  and  artful — a  disposition  which  seems  assumed 
throughout  the  Plays  to  be  the  normal  condition  of  womanhood. 

"5.  Thoroughly  immoral,  as  Cleopatra,   Phrynia,  Timandra,  Bianca. 

"6.  Gentle,  simple,  and  colorless,  as  Hero,  Olivia,  Ophelia,  Cor- 
delia, etc. 

"Noteworthy  exceptions,  which  exhibit  more  exalted  and  truer 
pictures  of  good  and  noble  women,  are  the  characters  of  Isabella,  of 
Volumnia,  and  of  Katherine  of  Arragon  ;  but  these  are  not  sufficient  to 
do  away  with  the  impression  that,  on  the  whole,  the  author  of  the 
Plays  had  but  a  poor  opinion  of  women;  that  love  he  regarded  as 
youthful  passion,  marriage  as  a  doubtful  happiness." 

It  will  be  noticed  that  Mrs.  Pott  omits  to  classify  Imogen. 
Rosalind,  Desdemona,  Juliet,  Portia,  Viola,  Miranda,  and 
others. 

In  answer,  Mr.  Rolfe  quotes  from  Charles  Cowden-Clarke, 
"who  is  one  of  the  most  sympathetic  and  appreciative  of 
critics  (partly,  no  doubt,  because  Mary  Cowden-Clarke  was 
his  wife  and  fellow-worker) : " 

"Of  all  the  writers  that  ever  existed,  no  one  ought  to  stand  so 
high  in  the  love  and  gratitude  of  women  as  he.  He  has  indeed  been 
their  champion,  their  laureate,  their  brother,  their  friend.  *  *  »  He 
has  asserted  their  prerogative,  as  intellectual  creatures,  to  be  the  com- 
panions (in  the  best  sense),  the  advisers,  the  friends,  the  equals  of 
men.  He  has  endowed  them  with  the  true  spirit  of  Christianity  and 
brotherly  love,  enduring  all  things,  forgiving  all  things,  hoping  all 
things;  and  it  is  no  less  remarkable  that,  with  a  prodigality  of  gene- 
rosity, he  has  not  unfrequently  placed  the  heroes  in  his  stories  at  a 
disadvantage  with  them." 

Cowden-Clarke  proceeds  to  illustrate  this  by  Hero  and  Claudio  in 
Muc/i  Ado  (the  play  he  is  discussing  at  the  time),  and  quotes  also,  in 
confirmation  of  the  statement,  the   characters  of  Bertram  in  AlPs   Well, 


of   Posthumus    in    Cytnbeline^    of   Leontes    in    the    Winter's    Tale,  and    of 
Proteus  in  the    Tivo  GentLmen  of  Verona.     He  adds  : 

"  All  these  characters  not  only  appear  at  a  disadvantage  by,  but  they 
are  unworthy  of  the  women  with  whom  they  are  united.  Shakespeare 
has  himself  made  the  Duke  in    Twel/tk  Night  say: 

However  we  do  praise  ourselves. 
Our  fancies  are  more  giddy  and  unfirm, 
More  longing,  wavering,  sooner  lost  and  worn, 
Than  women's  are. 

A  remarkable  confession  that  for  a  man  !  Therefore  Shakespeare  is 
the  writer,  above  all  others,  whom  women  should  most  take  to  their 
hearts;  for  it  may  be  said  to  have  been  mainly  through  his  influence 
that  their  claims  in  society  were  acknowledged  in  England,  when 
throughout  the  civilized  world  their  position  was  that  of  mere  domestic 
drudges." 

2IO     The    Promus,    etc.      A  review    in   the    Tribune, 
New  York,  March  ii,   18S3.      i^  columns. 

Pro-Sh. 


"  We  have  made  a  very  thorough  examination  of  these  1655  Pro- 
mus memorandums,  and  of  the  passages  which  are  produced  in 
illustration  and  elucidation  of  them;  we  have  read  every  word  that  the 
authoress  has  written  in  support  of  her  theory;  we  have  done  so,  we 
are  sure,  in  a  candid  spirit,  but  we  have  to  say,  as  the  result  of  our 
examination,  that  we  have  not  found  an  instance,  not  one,  in  which  a 
passage  in  the  plays  is  shown  to  have  its  origin  in  the  Promus.  The 
method  of  elucidating  the  Promus  by  '  Shakespeare '  seems  to  have 
been  to  fix  upon  the  most  salient  word  in  one  of  Bacon's  notes,  and 
then  to  take  up  Mrs.  Cowden-Clarke's  Concordance  to  Shakespeare,  and 
find  by  its  aid  passages  in  which  that  word  occurs,  or  more  rarely  a 
phrase  which  expresses  in  some  modified  or  related  form  the  idea  con- 
veyed by  the  Promus  word  or  phrase.  The  result  is  a  display  of  a 
word  or  a  phrase  on  one  side  and  several  like  words  or  phrases  on  the 
other;  but  of  any  necessary  connection  between  them,  of  any  inkling 
of  a  growth  of  the  latter  from  the  former,  there  is  an  utter  and  total 
absence." 

211     The  Promus,  etc.     A  review  in  the  Nation,  New 
York,  March  15,   1883.       2  columns. 

Pro-Sh, 


—  I03  — 
212     TiiK  Authorship  OF  Shakespeare.     An  editorial 
article.     [By  J.  G.  Pyle].     In  the  Pioneer  Press, 
St.  Paul,  Minn.,  March  25,   1883.     i   column. 

Anti-Sh. 

A  notice  of  the  Promus,  introducing  Morgan's  review. 

«' While  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  editress  has  carried  her 
comparisons  to  the  last  degree  of  attenuation,  and  has  discovered  resem- 
blances where  there  is  nothing  but  the  recurrence  of  a  single  unimpor- 
tant word  in  the  Promus  and  in  the  Plays  on  which  to  stand,  yet  when 
these  instances  are  eliminated,  there  remains  a  body  of  comcdences 
which  cannot  be  dismissed  with  a  cool  assumption  of  superiority  to  all 
modern  'vagaries,'  and  which  will  require  some  more  coherent  expla- 
nation than  the  article   by  Richard   Grant  White   in   the  last  Atla.fu. 

213  A  Review  of  Bacon's  Promus.  By  Appt.eton 
Morgan.  In  the  Pioneer  Press,  St.  Paul,  Minn. 
Part  I,  March  25,  1883;  Part  II,  April  i,  1883. 
5  columns.  Anti-Sh. 

In  this  paper,  besides  going  into  a  general  review  of  the 
subject,  Mr.  Morgan  gives  a  summary,  under  twelve  heads 
of  the  Net  Results  of  the  Promus,  at  the  conclusion  of  which 
he  says : 

.Now  which  existing  anti-Shakespearean  theory  does  the  evidence 
of  this  Promus  most  clearly  corroborate?  There  are  four  o  these 
theories,  all  of  which  have  many  parts  in  common,  but  no  two  of 
which  are  exactly  alike,  viz:  ,.  .     ,      ,  .,         , 

"  I  That  Bacon  and  the  rest  of  a  coterie  of  political  philosophers 
and  moralists  wrote  in  Hermetic  or  cryptographical  compositions  a  ph.los 
ophy  for  'the  next  ages'  which  they  dared  not  promulgate  m  Eliza- 
beth's  reicn  (Miss  Delia  Bacon's  theory). 

".    iLt  Francis  Bacon  wrote  Shakespeare    (the  Baconian    theory). 

<.;:  That  the  coterie  (perhaps  the  same  as  that  Miss  «--  M,g 
gested)  wrote  the  plays  to  amuse  themselves  and  inducedj  lUiam 
Shakespeare  to  father  them  for  a  consideration  (the  New  theoiy). 

."That  whoever  wrote  them,  William  Shakespeare  was  stage 
editor  only  of  the  plays  (the  Editorial  theory) . 

.<  It  seems  to  us  that  the  new  evidence  offered  by  the  Promus 
marshals  itself,  with  the  least  violence,  on  the  side  of  either  Theory 
?  or  Theory  4,  and.  as  between  these  latter,  most  naturally  on  the  side 
of  Theory  4." 


—  I04  — 

214  The  Authorship  of  Miss  Bacon's  Book.  In 
the  Sunday  Telegrafh,  Milwaukee,  Wis.  Three 
articles  of  dates  following  : 

Unc. 

a — An  Odd  Literary  Sensation.     [Editorial,  by 
Col.  E.  A.  Calkins].     March  25,   1883. 

"Miss  Bacon,  as  she  alleged  to  be  the  case  with  Shakespeare,  was 
not  the  author  of  her  own  book.  It  was  written  throughout  by  T.  C. 
Leland,  then  a  stenographic  reporter  on  the  New  York  Tribune. 
*  *  *  Mr.  Leland  stated  to  literary  gentlemen  with  whom  he  be- 
came acquainted  at  Madison  [in  1853]  that  he  was  engaged  in  this 
labor,  and  had  partly  completed  Miss  Bacon's  work.  *  *  *  He  did 
not  claim  to  be  more  than  her  mere  amanuensis,  though  in  fact  he  was 
something  more,  as  he  furnished  the  forms  of  expression  which  Miss 
Bacon  employed  while  transferring  her  views   to  paper." 

Zi— Miss   Delia  Bacon.      Letter  from  W.  H.  W. 
[W.  H.  Wyman].     April  8,   1883. 

"Doubtless  there  would  be  a  poetic  or  retributive  justice  in  deny- 
ing to  Delia  Bacon  the  authorship  of  her  own  book,  but,  unfortunately 
for  this  theory,  I  cannot  see  how  it  can  have  the  slightest  foundation  in 
fact.  *  *  *  [References  are  given  to  Mrs.  Farrar's  Recollections,  and 
to  Hawthorne's  Preface  to  Miss  Bacon's  work.]  *  *  *  These  extracts 
show  conclusively  that  neither  of  her  works  on  this  subject  were 
written  in  this  country,  nor  until  some  years  after  the  reported  con- 
versations; and  even  that  in  England  she  could  have  had  no  assistance 
is  clear,  from  the  fact  that  she  was  alone,  and  it  was  with  the  utmost 
difficulty  that  she  sustained  herself  during  that  time.  *  *  *  I  do 
not  call  your  attention  to  these  misapprehensions  because  I  have  any 
belief  in  Delia  Bacon's  theories,  but  simply  that  justice  may  be  done 
to  the  memory  of  a  woman  whose  sad  fate  has  caused  her  to  be  greatly 
misunderstood." 

c — Letter  from  T.  C.  Leland,  dated  New  York, 
August   22,    1883  ;  printed  September  9,    1883. 

•'I  think  it  was  in  the  late  fall  of  1852,  or  perhaps  it  was  Decem- 
ber, I  was  engaged  to  report  some  lectures  delivered  in  this  city  by 
Miss  Delia  Bacon,  on  the  Art  and  Culture  of  Egypt  and  other  ancient 
nations.  Though  she  was  a  very  ready,  fluent,  and,  at  times,  eloquent 
speaker,  yet  when  she  came  to  take  up  her  pen  she  wrote  slowly  and 
with  difficulty.  She  expressed  a  wish  one  day  that  I  should  help  her 
in  this  respect.  I  suggested  that,  if  she  could  dictate  to  me,  an  au- 
dience  of  one,   as   fluently    and   happily   as   she    did   to  an  audience  of 


—  I05  — 

hundreds,  she  would  be  a  perfect  success.  We  agreed  to  make  the 
experiment,  but,  on  trial,  she  found  that  an  amanuensis  was  practically 
somewhat  better,  but  not  much,  than  a  pen.  There  was,  on  trial,  one 
advantage ;  that  occasionally  she  would  have  inspired  moments  and  a 
spurt  of  thought  and  rapid  utterances;  and  these  gushes  I  could  take 
down  and  save,  which  otherwise  she  could  not  have  traced  rapidly 
enough  on  paper,  and  would  have  lost.  *  *  *  But  in  all  this  I 
played  the  part,  simply  and  only,  of  an  amanuensis,  putting  down  her 
words  conscientiously  without  any  change  or  amendment  of  mine.  My 
short-hand  notes  were  translated  into  long-hand  copy  just  as  she  deliv- 
ered the  words,  and  handed  to  her.  I  suppose  that  these  notes  were 
the  basis,  in  whole  or  in  part— probably  a  larger  part— of  her  subse- 
quent book." 

215  Bacon's  Promus  Again.  By  A.  A.  A.  [Adee]. 
In   the   Repiblic,    Washington,    March    31,    1883. 

Pro-Sh. 

216  The  Shakespeare-Bacon  Question.  A  Biblio- 
graphical list  of  the  works  on  the  subject  in  the 
Boston    Public   Library.       In    the  Btdletin    of  the 

Library  for  April,   1883.     38  titles. 

Unc. 

217  The  Bacon-Shakespeare  Craze.     By  Richard 

Grant    White.       In    the    Atlantic    Monthly    for 

April,   1883.     (See  pages  507-521.) 

Pro-Sh. 

In  this  paper,  Mr.  White  expresses  his  personal  indiffer- 
ence as  to  whether  Bacon,  Shakespeare,  or  anybody  else  is 
to  be  credited  with  the  authorship,  as  it  "  affects  in  no  way  the 
value  or  interest  of  the  plays ; "  he  gives  a  very  complete  and 
unfavorable  review  of  the  Promus,  occupying  ten  pages ;  in- 
stances the  sonnets,  as  impossible  to  have  been  written  by 
Bacon,  who  did  not  therefore  write  the  plays;  and  makes  a 
brilliant  comparison  between  Bacon  and  Shakespeare,  showing 
"  the  unlikeness  of  Bacon's  mind  and  of  his  style  to  those  of 
the  writer  of  the  plays."  The  following  is  an  extact  from  the 
concluding  paragraph : 

"As  to  treating  the  question  seriously,  that  is  not  to  be  done  by  men 
of  common  sense  and  moderate  knowledge  of  the  subject.     *     "*'     '^     It 


—  io6  — 

is  as  certain  that  William  Shakespeare  wrote  (after  the  theatrical  fashion, 
and  under  the  theatrical  conditions  of  his  day)  the  plays  that  bear  his 
name,  as  it  is  that  Francis  Bacon  wrote  the  Novum  Organum,  the 
Advancement  of  Learning,  and  the  Essays.  The  notion  that  Bacon 
also  wrote  Titus  Andronicus,  The  Comedy  of  Errors,  Hamlet,  King 
Lear,  and  Othello,  is  not  worth  five  minutes'  consideration  by  any 
reasonable  creature." 

2i8  Richard  Grant  White  and  "The  Bacon- 
Shakespeare  Craze."  By  F.  [Edward  Fille- 
brown].       In  the    Common-wealthy    Boston,  March 

31,   1883.     I  column. 

Anti-Sh. 

219  "The   Bacon-Shakespeare  Craze."      Letter  of 

Appleton    Morgan    in  the  Post^  Boston,  April  2, 

1883.     \  column. 

Anti-Sh. 

220  "  The  Bacon-Shakespeare  Craze"  of  Richard 
Grant  White.  By  O.  F.  [O.  Follett].  In  the 
7?t'w75/i:r,  Sandusky,  O.,  April  5,   1883.      i  column. 

Anti-Sh. 

221  The  Promus,  etc.  A  notice  of  the  book  in  the 
Mercury.,  Leeds,  England,  April  11,   1883. 

Pro-Sh. 

222  Shakespeare's  Schooling,  with  Some  Light 
AS  TO  THE  Elizabethan  Boy.  Letter  from 
Appleton  Morgan.  In  the  Pioneer  Press,  St. 
Paul,  Minn.,  April  15,   1883.     i  column. 

Anti-Sh. 

A  dissertation  on  the  insufficiency  of  the  schools  in  Shake- 
speare's day.  In  illustration  of  this,  Mr.  Morgan  quotes  school- 
master Evans  and  his  pupil  William,  in  Merry  IVives  of  IVifid- 
sor,  Act  IV,  Scene  L 


—  I07  — 

223  The  Bacon-Shakespeare  Theory.  In  the  Morn- 
ing 'Joiirnaly  Cincinnati,  April  i6,  1883.     i  column. 

Pro-Sh. 

224  Shakespearian  Circle-Squaring.     A   criticism 

of  the  Prom  lis,  in  the  Pall  Mall  Gazelle,  London, 

April  20,  1883.      1 4  columns. 

Pro-Sh. 

225  Articles    in    Shakes-peariana,    in    the    Literary 
World,  Boston,  April  21,  1883. 

a — Cleopatra's   "  BilHards."     Note    from    Hon.  A. 

A.  Adee,  with  remarks  by  the  Editor. 
h — Mr.  Grant  White   on   Bacon  and  Shakespeare. 

Pro-Sh. 

Mr.  Adee  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  often  quoted 
(but  disputed)  anachronism  in  Antotiy  and  Cleopatra — where 
Cleopatra  says  to  her  attendant,  Charmian,  "let's  to  bil- 
liards"—  was  doubtless  obtained  from  Chapman,  who  uses 
the  word  '  billiards"  similarly  in  his  Blind  Beggar  of  Alexandria, 
printed  ten  years  before  Antony  and  Cleopatra  was  written. 
As   to   the   anachronisms   generally,    Mr.    Rolfe  says : 

*  *  *  «  if^  to  preserve  his  incognito,  Bacon  had  refrained  from 
any  parade  of  his  scholarship,  and  had  even  put  occasional  anachro- 
nisms into  the  mouths  of  his  characters,  we  cannot  imagine  him  show- 
ing the  habitual  ignorance  in  such  matters  that  Shakespeare  does.  He 
could  never  have  made  Coriolanus  talk  of  'graves  in  the  holy  church- 
yard,' or  Menenius,  in  the  same  play,  of  'Galen' — 'an  anachronism  of 
near  650  years,'  as  Dr.  Grey  called  it — or  Mark  Antony,  of  coming  to 
'  bury  '  Cassar,  and  the  like.  These  frequent  and  free-and-easy  blunders, 
so  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  scholarly  habit  of  mind,  are  of  them- 
selves a  sufficient  refutation  of  the  theory  that  '  Bacon  wrote  Shake- 
speare.' " 

226  Shakespeare.  By  Rev.  Edward  C.  Towne. 
Two  articles  in  the  Evening  Transcript,  Boston. 
I,  April  28,   1883;  II,  August  3,  1S83.     3  columns 

each. 

Pro-Sh. 


—  io8  — 


These  articles  are  devoted  principally  to  the  life,  genius, 
and  character  of  Shakespeare  as  disproving  the  Baconian 
theory. 


227  "Our  Shakespeare  Club."  Remarks  of  Sam. 
TiMMiNS,  Chairman.  In  the  Daily  Maily  Birming- 
ham, England,  April  24,   1883. 

Pro-Sh. 

Mr.  TiMMiNS  presided  at  the  annual  dinner  of  the  club 
on  the  birth-day  of  Shakespeare,  at  the  Plow  and  Harrow 
Hotel,  Birmingham,  and  made  the  opening  address,  opposing 
all  the  anti-Shakespearian   theories. 

228  "  Bacon's  Promus."  Two  letters  of  Appleton 
Morgan  of  this  title.  In  the  Repiiblic,  Washing- 
ton, April  28,  and  March  24,  1883. 

Anti-Sh. 


229     Shakespeare  as  a  Myth,     B}'  Henry  Hooper. 

In   the    Commercial  Gazette,  Cincinnati,  April  29, 

1883.     3  columns. 

Pro-Sh. 

Occasioned   by    Morgan's    Shakespearean  Myth,  to  which  it 
is  a  reply. 

"  If  Shakespeare  alone  wrote  these  plays,  then  it  is  the  greatest  mir- 
acle on  record,  says  Mr.  Morgan.  If  it  be  a  miracle  for  one,  it  would 
be  a  combination  of  miracles  for  ten,  or  even  two,  to  compose  Hamlet 
or  Othello.  *  *  *  The  joint  composition  theory  is  as  improbable  and 
impossible  as  it  would  be  for  an  orchestra  to  invent  a  Symphony  of 
Beethoven.  You  might  just  as  well  say  that  Beethoven's  Ninth  Sym- 
phony is  the  joint  work  of  a  number  of  musicians,  viz:  that  the  violin 
players  composed  the  string  parts,  the  reed  players  the  flute  and  oboe 
parts,  and  the  trombones  and  double  basses  their  scores.  This  is  not 
more  absurd  than  the  theory  that  a  pale  student,  a  needy  scholar,  a 
ready  writer,  an  actor  and  a  stage  manager  produced  Twelfth  Night  and 
A'tng  Lear^' 


—  I09  — 

230  Who  Was  Shakespeare?  Address  by  Mr,  Wil- 
liam Leighton,  Jr  ,  at  the  Shakespeare  Chib 
Banquet,  WheeHng,  W.  Va.,  April  23,  1883.  In 
the    Sunday   Register^  Wheeling,    April  29,    1883. 

Pro  Sh. 

In  Mr.  Leighton's  address  the  authorship  is  only  incident- 
ally referred  to. 

"Genius  is  the  touch  of  God's  hand,  an  inspiration  that  comes  not 
out  of  any  college,  but  is  evoked  from  the  soul  by  its  own  tendencies 
and  aspirations;  and,  so  born,  can  only  be  fostered  into  healthy  matu- 
rity by  unremitting  labor.  The  attempt  to  take  from  Shakespeare's 
brow  the  laurel  crown  of  the  most  glorious  of  bards  is  a  vain  effort  to 
rob  a  dead  man  of  well-earned  honors;  and  why?  Because  a  yeoman 
must  not  presume  to  stand  above  a  nobleman  ;  or  a  poet,  who  has  not 
been  to  college,  dare  to  mount  the  winged  steed.  But  Shakespeare's 
honors  can  not  be  taken  from  him  by  idle  sophistry  or  arbitrary  dog- 
matism; he  has  entrenched  himself  in  the  hearts  of  his  countrymen, 
and  his  position  is  impregnable." 

231  Who  Is  Shakespeare?  Address  by  Mr.  Joseph 
Crosby,  at  the  Shakespeare  Club  Banquet,  Wheel- 
ing, W.  Va.,  as  above.     In  the  Sunday  Register, 

Wheeling,  April  29,    1883. 

Pro-Sh. 

Mr.  Crosby — whose  views  will  be  found  under  tide  126 — 
devotes   a   portion  only  of  this  address  to  the  authorship. 

232  Letter  from  Appleton  Morgan.  In  the  Church 
Eclectic,  Utica,  N.  Y.,  for  May,  1883.      3  pages. 

Anti-Sh. 

A  reply  to  the  letter  of  Mr.  Crosby's  in  the  same  maga- 
zine for  November,  1880.     We  quote  one  point  only: 

"I  am  sure  I  can  refer  the  writer  to  at  least  half  a  score  of  author- 
ities which  will  agree  that  the  tuition  in  provincial  grammar-schools 
of  the  Sixteenth  Century  was  simply  ridiculous,  and  a  travesty ;  a  little 
of  A,  B,  C,  and  Lily's  Accidence,  and  a  good  deal  of  birch  ;  and  that 
however   it   made    boys    truants,  it    hardly  graduated  '  men  of  letters.'  " 


233  Bosh  about  Bacon.    By  A.  B.  B.  [A.  B.  Braley, 

Madison,  Wis.]  In  the  Sunday  Telegraph,  Mil- 
waukee, Wis.,  May  20,  1883,  1^  columns.  Also, 
The  Bacon  Cranks.  Evidence  of  Shakespeare's 
Contemporaries.  In  the  same  paper,  June  10,  1883. 
i^  columns. 

Pro-Sh. 

234  Shakespeare  at  Home.  Letter  from  M.  D.  C. 
[MoNCURE  D.  Conway],  from  Stratford-on-Avon, 
April  21,  1883.  In  the  Couiniercial  Gazette,  Cin- 
cinnati, May  26,   1883.     2  columns. 

Unc. 

An  interesting   letter  from  Mr.   Conway  on  the  occasion  of 
one  of  the  commemorative  celebrations  at  Stratford. 
Referring  to  Delia  Bacon's  book: 

*  ■;•:-  «•  «  Perhaps  there  never  was  such  a  monument  of  wasted 
ability.  There  is  hardly  anything  in  it  of  a  negative  character,  very 
little  that  shows  apprehension  of  the  real  points  in  the  Shakespearean 
traditions  that  tempt  skepticism.  Her  book  dwells  on  the  affirmation 
that  Bacon  wrote  the  plays  ;  that  may  easily  be  answered  by  any  one  who 
will  turn  from  a  page  of  Shakespeare  to  one  of  Bacon,  which,  to  most 
people,  is  turning  from  a  winged  to  an  earth-bound  genius.  But  the 
incidental  theory  that  Shakespeare  did  7iot  write  these  plays,  though 
at  present  the  fadd  of  a  few,  is  not  unlikely  to  acquire  large  propor- 
tions in  the  future.  Such  is  the  inevitable  doom  of  every  set  of  tradi- 
tions that  have  not  been  subjected  to  severe  skeptical  criticism. 

"  For  the  back-ground  of  miracle  is  always  present — namely,  that 
the  village  lad,  son  of  a  man  who  could  not  write  his  name,  wrote 
all  these  mighty  works,  died  at  the  age  of  fifty-three,  and  yet  left  no 
manuscript,   no  records,  so  that  not  even  his  birth-day  is  known. 

"Yet  here  are  the  works.  Somebody  wrote  them.  Or  it  would 
be  truer  to  say  that  somebody  recognized  the  great  world-histories  and 
legends,  exhumed  them,  covered  them  with  flesh  and  blood,  and  breathed 
into  them  the  breath  of  life.  For  here  we  are  enjoying  them,  and 
finding  amid  all  these  creations  the  presence  of  a  central  mind,  however 
inapprehensible." 

235  Who  Wrote  Julius  C^sar?     By  H.  I.     In  the 

TiinesStar ,  Cincinnati,  May  29,  1S83.     2  coluinns. 

Anti-Sh, 


The  writer  takes  the  occasion  of  the  Cincinnati  Dramatic 
Festival  to  make  this  inquiry: 

*•  The  Dramatic  Festival  of  this  city  was  inaugurated  by  the  pro- 
duction, at  immense  cost  and  great  splendor,  of  llie  play  of  Julius 
Caesar.  It  must  have  been  'indeed  an  oasis' — with  McCuUough  and 
Murdoch,  Barrett,  Louis  James,  and  Miss  Forsyth  in  the  fore-front,  five 
hundred  Roman  citizens  and  soldiers  in  perfect  drill — a  spectacle  this 
to  have  gladdened  with  happy  moisture  the  eyes,  could  they  have  seen 
it,  of — the — author.      Who  was  he?'' 

The  writer  professes  his  belief  that  the  author  was  Fran- 
cis Bacon,  and  advances  a  claim  of  parallel  thoughts,  etc., 
between  the  plays  and  the  Advancement  of  Learning  in  support 
of  his  opinion. 

236  Hat  Francis  Bacon  die  Dramen  William 
Shakespeare's  GESCHiiiEBEN  ?  Ein  Beitrao:  zur 
Geschichte  der  geistigen  Verirrungen.  Von  Dr. 
Eduard  Engel,  Leipzig,  1883.  (Did  Francis 
Bacon  Write  William  Shakespeare's  Plays? 
A  contribution  to  the  history  of  Intellectual  Errors.) 
Pamphlet,  pp.  43. 

Pro-Sh. 

Dr.  Engel  takes  for  his  text  Mrs.  Pott's  Fromus,  and  this 
pamphlet  is  in  answer  to  that  work,  and  to  the  favorable 
notice  of  it  appearing  in  the  Allgemeine  Zeitung  (see  titles  205 
and  206),  which  he  ascribes  to  '  Herr  V.'  He  strongly 
opposes  all  anti-Shakespearian  theories. 

"  It  would  be  deplorable,  and  would  contradict  all  the  history  of 
the  world's  literature,  if  Lord  Bacon  had  written  Shakespeare's  plays. 
It  would  be  deplorable — and  this  decides  the  matter — because  it  would 
then  be  shown,  for  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  mankind,  that  a 
poetical  genius  of  the  highest  sublimity,  and  a  character  of  the  lowest 
baseness,  could  exist  in  one  and  the  same  man." 

Dr.  Engel  closes  his  essay  with  a  quotation  from  Herder : 

"I  have  in  my  mind  an  immense  figure  of  a  man,  sitting  high  on 
a  rocky  summit;  at  his  feet,  storm,  tempest,  and  the  raging  of  the  sea; 
but  his  head  in  the  beams  of  heaven.  This  is  Shakespeare.  Only,  with 
this  addition,  that  far  below,  at  the  foot  of  his  rocky  throne,  are  mur- 
muring crowds,  who  expound,  preserve,  condemn,  defend,  worship, 
blander,  over-rate,  and  abuse  him — and  of  all  this  he  hears  nothing." 


112  — 

237  Bacon  and  Shakespeare.      In   Shakcspcariana, 
in  the  Literary    World,  Boston,  June  2,   1883. 

Pro-Sh. 

The  editor  introduces  in  this  article  an  extract  from  a 
letter  received  by  Mr.  Joseph  Crosby  from  "one  of  the  most 
learned  and  philosophical  of  living  Shakespearian  critics." 
The  writer  of  the  letter  [Dr.  Ingleby,  of  England]  says,  after 
expressing  his  dissent  from  the  opinions  of  those  who  believe 
that  it  is  immaterial  whether  the  plays  were  written  by  Shake- 
speare or  Bacon : 

"And  I  cannot  without  concern  witness  the  crazy  efforts  of  these 
would-be  critics  to  separate  what  history  has  joined  together,  and  to 
make  over  the  better  half  of  Shakespeare's  fame  to  a  man,  not  only 
immeasurably  his  inferior,  but  of  a  totally  different  order  of  mind. 
*     *  I    have   read,   studied,  and    written    upon    Francis  Bacon,  and 

seem  to  myself  to  know  the  man  well ;  as  well  as  I  know  Shakespeare, 
through  his  works.  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  Bacon's  strength  lay 
in  his  Analysis:  he  was  a  most  acute  and  sagacious  critic  of  the  past, 
and  moreover  knew  the  needs  of  man,  and  in  what  direction  those 
needs  could  be  met,  and  to  some  extent  satisfied.  But  this  made  him 
a  tremendous  Apollyon — a  destructive  force  of  the  greatest,  the  most 
momentous  character.  He  succeeded  as  a  destroyer,  but  when  he 
attempted  to  construct,  he  made  a  conspicuous  failure.  *  »  «  Such 
a  man  write  Shakespeare !  It  is  really  not  worth  five  minutes'  discus- 
sion." 

238  About  Shakespeare.     By  Joseph  A.  Woodhull. 

In    the   Republican,  Angola,  Ind.,   June  27,   1883. 

I -J  columns. 

Pro-Sh. 

239  A  Bit  of  the  Baconian  Theory.     A  letter  from 

Constance  M.  Pott.     [Mrs.  Henry  Pott].      In 

the  Pioneer  Press,  St.  Paul,  Minn.,  July  15,  1883. 

I  column. 

Anti-Sh. 

This  letter  is  mainly  a  description  of  St.  Albans,  the  resi- 
dence of  Lord  Bacon,  with  its  historical  associations  and  its 
objects  of  archaeological  interest,  as  compared  with  Stratford- 
on-Avon,  and  what  R.  Grant  White  calls  its  "  museum  of 
doubtful  relics  and  gimcracks." 


—  113  — 

240  William  Done  For.     By  John  W.  Bell.     In  the 
Commercial  Gazette^  July    21,   1883.     ^  column. 

Anti-Sh. 
An  answer  to  Mr.  Hooper's  article  (title  229)  in  same  paper. 

241  Mr.    O'Connor's    Letter.      In  Bucke's   life    of 

Walt.   Whitman.     Philadelphia,  August,  1883.  (See 

pages  88  to  93.) 

Anti-Sh. 

This  is  an  introductory  letter  by  William  D.  O'Connor  to 
his  Good  Grey  Poet,  printed  in  the  appendix  to  the  above  work. 

"The  main  scope  and  purpose  of  the  Shakespeare  drama  are  defi- 
nitely given  by  Lord  Bacon  in  connection  with  his  assertion  that  the 
compilation  of  the  natural  history  of  the  human  passions  is  the  first 
duty  of  philosophy,  and  that  it  is  particularly  the  province  of  poetry. 
In  this  connection  he  describes  the  Shakespearean  work  perfectly. 
Therein,  he  says,  '  we  may  find  painted  forth,  with  great  life,  how  pas- 
sions are  kindled  and  incited;  how  pacified  and  refrained;  and  how 
again  contained  from  act  and  further  degree;  how  they  disclose  them- 
selves; how  they  work;  how  they  vary;  how  they  gather  and  fortify; 
how  they  are  inwrapped,  one  within  another;  and  how  they  do  fight 
and  encounter  one  with  another;  and  other  the  like  particulars.'  'That 
is  to  say,'  remarks  Dr.  Kuno  Fischer,  quoting  this  passage  :  '  Bacon 
desires  nothing  less  than  a  natural  history  of  the  passions ;  the  very 
thing  that  Shakespeare  has  produced.' 

"  The  only  supreme  tyrant  is  ignorance.  If  I  sought  to  express 
the  Shakespeare  drama  in  the  image  of  a  person,  I  would  not  choose 
the  eidolon  of  any  feudal  emperor.  My  choice  would  be  a  man  like 
Francis  Bacon,  *  *  *  wise  with  all  the  lore  of  all  the  ages, 
the  companion  and  counsellor  of  princes,  the  familiar  of  gypsies,  and 
tinkers,  and  sailors  as  well;  deep-eyed,  with  long  insight  into  the 
minds  of  men  of  every  degree;  master  of  multiform  experiences;  trav- 
eled, elegant,  courtly,  august,  intrepid,  loyal,  gentle,  compassionate,  sor- 
rowful, beautiful;  clothed,  from  fondness  for  sumptuous  apparel,  in 
purple  three-piled  velvet,  rich  laxes,  and  the  hat  with  plumes,  yet  lov. 
ing — another  anecdote  tells  of  him — to  ride  with  bared  head,  in  the 
warm  and  perfumed  rains  of  spring,  that  he  might  feel  upon  him,  he 
said,  the  universal  spirit  of  the  world." 


—  114  — 

242  A  Bibliography  of  the  Exhumation  Question. 
By  Dr.  C.  M.  Ingleby.  In  Shakes-pear c's  Bones. 
London:     Triibner  &  Co.,  1883.     4to.  pp.  48. 

Una, 

This  Bibliography  is  appended  to  Dr.  Ingleby's  book,  and 
is  pertinent  to  this  question  only  in  its  references  to  an  exhu- 
mation as  likely  to  set  at  rest  the  theories  (Miss  Bacon's,  for 
instance)  as  to  documents  being  deposited  in  the  tomb  of 
Shakespeare. 

243  The  Sonnets  of  Shakespeare.  When,  to 
Whom,  and  by  Whom  Written.  By  Antiquary. 
(Reprinted  from  the  Triith  Seeker^  New  York,  of 
August  18,  1883.)     Pamphlet,  i2mo.  pp.    12. 

Anti-Sh. 

The  author  gives  the  dedication  of  the  Sonnets : 

"To   the   onlie   begetter   of  |  these  insuing  Sonnets  |  Mr.   W.  H.  all 
happinesse  |  and    that    eternilie  |  promised    by  |  our    ever-living    poet  | 
wisheth  |  the  well-wishing  |  adventurer  in  |  setting  forth  |  T.  T." 

The  American  Cyclopedia  says : 

"To  whom  they  were  written,  and  in  whose  person  [T.  T.]  is 
among  the  most  difficult  of  unsolved  literary  problems.  «  *  *  Who 
this  'onlie  begetter'  was,  no  man  has  yet  been  able  satisfactorily  to 
show." 

The  writer  discusses  the  various  theories  on  this  subject. 
His  conclusions  may  be  summed  up  in  the  following  extract : 

''All  the  internal  and  external  evidence  points  to  the  year  1590  as 
the  date,  Francis  Bacon  as  the  writer,  and  the  Earl  of  Essex  as  the 
person  addressed." 

244  Mr.  Morgan  and  Shakespeare.  In  the  Pioneer 
Press,  St.  Paul,  August  19,  1883,  introducing  a 
letter  from  Appleton  Morgan,     i^  columns. 

Anti-Sh. 

This  refers  mainly  to  Fleay's  Shakespeare  Manual,  which 
(Mr.  Morgan  claims)  proves  that  "  many  hands  and  many  brains 
were  concerned  in  composing  the  works  we  call  Shakespeare." 


—  '15  — 

245  The  Gout  Club  Discusses  the  Authorship  of 
Shakespeare.  In  the  Tribune^  Denver,  Col.,  Octo- 
ber 14,  1883.     3  columns. 

Unc. 

What  is  here  called  the  Gout  Club  of  Denver,  consists  of 
a  few  congenial  spirits  who  meet  socially  and  discuss  various 
subjects  in  an  informal  way.  In  this  article  various  gentlemen 
are  credited  with  opinions  and  speeches  on  the  question. 
The  colloquists  consist  of  Col.  Ward  H.  Lamon,  Col.  J.  B. 
Belford,  Judge  Ward,  Col.  Craig,  Major  Carson,  Col.  Dormer, 
and  Judge  Steck. 

Reference  is  made  in  this  discussion  to  an  article,  Who 
Wrote  Shakespeare's  Henry  Villi  by  J.  S.  [James  Spedding], 
in  the  Gentleman's  Magazine  for  August,  1850,  as  the  earliest 
mention  of  a  doubt  as  to  the  authorship.  (The  date  is  erro- 
neously given  as  February,  1852.)  That  article,  however,  does 
not  raise  the  general  question  of  the  authorship,  but  simply 
claims  to  discover  the  hand  of  Fletcher  in  a  portion  of  this 
play,  as  a  co-worker  with  Shakespeare. 

246  The  Offer  to  the  New  Shakespere  Society. 
In  the  Academy,  London,  November  24,  1883. 

Unc. 

The  "curiosities"  of  this  hterature  would  be  incomplete 
without  the  following: 

"Mr.  Furnivall,  as  director  of  the  New  Shakespere  Society,  has 
received  an  amusing  letter  from  New  South  Wales.  A  gentleman  there 
has,  after  seven  years'  search,  discovered,  not  only  the  well-known  his- 
torical character  who  wrote  all  Shakespeare's  plays  and  poems,  but  the 
very  month  and  spot  in  which  eleven  of  the  plays  were  written,  and 
the  probable  date  and  locality  in  which  the  rest  were  composed,  the 
author's  object  in  writing  them,  and  the  historical  characters  and  events 
meant  by  the  dramatic  ones;  further,  that  one  character  was  interpo- 
lated, and  one  entire  play  was  written  by  the  author  after  Shakespeare's 
death.  This  antipodean  discoverer  can  also  now  date  and  explain  all 
the  Sonnets  except  four  (123,  124,  144,  146),  and  those  'will  be  ex- 
plained on  a  future  occasion.'  He  knows  who  'Mr.  W.  H  ,'  the  beget- 
ter of  the  Sonnets,  was,  and  all  the  persons  to  whom  they  were  addressed ; 
and  he  can  show  that  our  royal  family  is  descended    from  Perdita.     So 


—  lie- 
certain  is  the  researcher  of  the  value  of  his  discoveries  that  he  offers  to 
come  to  London  and  unfold  his  secrets  to  the  Newr  Shakespere  Society, 
if  only  they  wrill  guarantee  him  the  payment  of  ^^30,000  in  case  he  can 
convince  the  majority  of  them  of  the  truth  of  his  discoveries.  A  letter 
from  the  Premier  of  New  South  Wales  attests  the  high  standing  and 
sanity  of  the  discoverer." 

247  Notes  on  Julius  C^sar.  By  Wm.  J.  Rolfe.  In 
Shakespeariana  (the  new  Shakespearian  monthly. 
New  York:  Leonard  Scott  Publishing  Co.),  for 
December,   1883. 

Pro-Sh. 

A  part  only  of  the  article  refers  to  this  subject: 

"  The  closeness  with  which  the  dramatist  follows  Plutarch  in  Julius 
Csesar  and  the  other  Roman  plays  has  been  noted  by  the  commentators 
generally.  *  *  *  Even  the  blunders  of  Plutarch,  or  of  his  copyists  or 
editors  (as  Decius  Brutus  for  Decinius  Brutus,  Calphurnia  for  Calpurnia, 
and  the  like),  are  literally  reproduced  in  the  play.  To  my  mind  this 
is  proof  positive  that  Bacon  did  not  write  it.  He  was  too  good  a 
scholar  to  follow  blindly  the  translation  of  a  translation,  repeating  errors 
which  a  scholar  would  neither  make  himself  nor  fail  to  detect  in  another; 
and  he  was  too  independent  to  adopt  the  views  of  any  one  authority 
without  comparing  them  with  others  that  were  equally  well  known 
to  him." 


248  Lawyer  or  no  Lawyer.  Letter  from  Appleton 
Morgan.  In  Shakespeariana,  New  York,  for  Jan- 
uary,  1884. 

Anti-Sh. 

Mr.  Morgan  argues  from  the  "grave-digger  travesty"  in 
Hatnld,  and  the  trial  scene  in  the  Merchant  of  Venice,  that 
"William  Shakespeare  was  neither  a  lawyer  nor  a  lawyer's 
clerk." 

"  It  is  wicked  to  peep  and  botanize  over  the  magnificent  and  match- 
less poetry  of  that  matchless  trial  scene.  But  if  it  is  worth  while  to 
find  out  who  wrote  that  magnificent  and  matchless  poetry,  these  ques- 
tions ought  not  to  be   stifled." 


—  117  — 

249  ^^^    Shakespkare   Write    Shakespeare?      By 
Prof.  J.  H.  Gilmore.     In  the  Standard,  Chicago, 

January  31,   1884.     2  cokimns. 

■'  l^ro-cili. 

«'  The  plays  do  not  evince  learning,  but  genius.  They  are  especially 
deficient  in  that  refinement  which  springs  from  thorough  culture,  and 
which  Bacon  pre-eminently  possessed.  Indeed,  as  insisted  by  Dowden, 
the  whole  habit  and  spirit  of  Bacon's  mind  and  the  mind  of  Shake- 
speare were  different." 

The  comparison  of  Shakespeare  and  Bacon  alluded  to 
above  will  be  found  in  Dowden's  Shakespeare:  His  Mi?id  and 
Art,  pages  16,   17. 

250  "Who  Was  Holofernes?"  By  Mrs.  Henry 
Pott.  In  Shakcspearicma,  New  York,  for  Febru- 
ary,  1884.     2  pages. 

Anti-Sh. 

This  was  occasioned  by  an  article  of  Mr.  Henry  Hooper's, 
in  Shakcspeariana,  for  December,  1883,  under  the  same  title, 
intimating  that  Shakespeare  had  Lord  Bacon  in  his  mind  as 
the  model  for  Holofernes,  the  pedantic  schoolmaster  in  Love's 
Labor  Lost.  Mrs.  Pott  believes  that  the  character  of  Holofernes 
was  drawn  by  Bacon  himself  as  an  example  of  "pedantic  and 
wordy  affectations,"  and  quotes  from  his  works  to  sustain  her 
opinion. 

251  The  Law  in  Shakespeare.  By  C.  K.  Davis. 
St.     Paul:     West    Publishing    Co.,     1884.      i2mo. 

PP-  3°3-  Pro-Sh. 

An  index  of  Legal  Terms  and  References  in  the  plays, 
with  an  introduction  (pages  3-59)  devoted  to  the  Baconian 
theory  in  part. 

"  And  now  comes  some  one  and  says  that  here  is  more  proof  that 
Shakespeare  is  a  mere  alias  for  Bacon.  It  is  difficult  to  touch  or  let 
alone  this  vagary  with  any  patience.  One  is  inclined  to  protest  simply 
in  the  words  of  Shakespeare's  epitaph: 


—  ii8  — 

Good  frend  for  lesvs  sake  forbeare 
To  digg  the  dust  encloased    heare, 

and  pass  on,  deeming  all   secure   against  a  desecration    worse    than  that 
which  the  poet  cursed. 

■:■:-  ■:■;•  *  *  ■:•:-  *  *  «  ■»  *  * 

"Charles  I.  was  sixteen  years  of  age  when  Shakespeare  died.  Bacon 
dedicated  to  him  his  history  of  Henry  VII.  Shakespeare  in  Macbeth 
nobly  magnified  the  House  of  Stuart  by  a  prophecy  of  its  perpetuity. 
The  works  of  Shakespeare  were  the  closet  companion  of  Charles,  who 
was  reproached  for  this  by  Milton,  at  a  time  when  the  fierce  zealots  of 
rebellion  had  come  to  look  upon  the  drama  as  sinful.  Falkland  was 
Charles's  councilor,  and  it  is  from  him  that  we  have  respecting  Caliban, 
the  first  critical  estimate  extant  of  any  character  in  Shakespeare.  And 
yet  from  prince,  king,  courtier,  poet,  or  scholar,  we  hear  no  hint  which 
can  give  this  modern  theory  the  slightest   support." 

252  Davis's    "The    Law    in    Shakespeare."       Two 
articles  in  the  Pioneer  Press,  St.   Paul,    February 
24,   1884.     [By  Appleton  Morgan]. 
a — Review  of  the  book.     2\  columns. 
b — Gov.  Davis  on  Shakespeare.     \  column. 

Anti-Sh. 

The  following  is  the  conclusion  of  the  last  named  article: 

"  Gov.  Davis  has  added  a  notable  contribution  to  the  material 
accumulating  to  answer  this  question,  if  answered  it  ever  is  to  be.  The 
Baconians  will,  perhaps,  accuse  him  of  unprofessional  conduct  in  mov- 
ing to  cross  off  the  roll  of  Shakespearean  possibilities  the  name  of  a 
great  lawyer  and  Lord  Chancellor.  But  they  will  find  their  consolation 
in  the  fact  that  here  is  an  entirely  new  arsenal  for  carrying  on  their 
warfare.  For  nobody  has  ever  so  unmistakably  shown  the  lawyer  in 
the  plays  before.  In  fact,  Gov.  Davis  will  thus  find  his  peace  all 
around.  Shakespeareans  will  purr  him  for  his  heavy  blows  at  the 
Baconians;  Baconians  will  secretly  approve  him  for  building  better  than 
he  knew  when  he  traced  an  aristocratic  lawyer  in  every  Shakespearean 
line;  and  the  neutral  student  will  add  the  book  to  his  Shakespeariana, 
among  the  fresh  rather  than  the  stale  matter,  with  pleasure  and  thanks- 
giving. No  Minnesotian  will  fail  to  feel  honored  that  one  of  our  most 
distinguished  fellow-citizens  ha=;,  for  the  first  time,  drawn  from  the 
history  of  Francis  Bacon,  if  not  from  that  of  William  Shakespeare,  an 
almost  insuperable  and  insurmountable  reason  why  Francis  Bacon,  at 
least,  could  not  have  been  William  Himself." 


—  119  — 

253  The  Baconian  Theory.  Review  of  the  Pronms, 
in  the  Times,  New  York,  Feb.  25,  1884.     i  column. 

Pro-Sh. 

"  In  publishing  this  Promiis^  Mrs.  Pott  has  not  only  failed  to  prove 
that  Bacon  wrote  Shakespeare's  plays,  but  she  has  gone  a  long  way 
toward  proving  that  Bacon  could  not  possibly  have  written  them.  It  is 
inconceivable  that  a  poet  in  keeping  a  note  book  of  phrases,  etc.,  to  be 
used  in  his  finished  work,  should  not  frequently  write  out  in  the  glow 
of  creation,  whole  passages,  or,  at  least,  consecutive  lines  of  verse,  to 
be  afterward  incorporated  in  his  poem.  Let  any  one  compare,  for  in- 
stance, Hawthorne's  note  book  with  his  tales  and  romances.  He  will 
find  entire  pages  transferred  almost  bodily  from,  the  former  into  the 
latter.  He  will  find  scores  of  metaphors,  similes,  reflections,  outlines 
for  stories,  descriptions,  incidents,  etc.,  the  language  of  which  is  repro- 
duced, in  great  part  literally,  in  the  completed  works  of  the  romancer. 
There  is  no  such  resemblance  to  be  detected  anywhere  between  the 
fragmentary  jottings  in  the  Fromus  and  the  text  of  Shakespeare's  plavs. 
On  the  other  hand,  there  are  in  the  Promus  numbers  of  quotations  and 
sentences  which  Bacon  did  use  in  his  acknowledged  writings,  and  in 
such  cases  the  language  is  almost  always  identical,  and  any  one  fam- 
iliar with  the  Essays,  e.  g.  will  recognize  the  source  of  many  sayings 
that  have  struck  his  mind." 

254  Shakespeare  as  a  Foreign  Linguist.  By  Prof. 
James  A.  Harrison.  In  Shakes-peariana,  New 
York,  for  March,   1884. 

Pro-Sh. 

This  paper  merely  refers  to  the  authorship  in  this  sugges- 
tive question  : 

"If  Bacon  had  been  the  author  of  these  plays,  would  he  not  have 
strewn  them  with  innumerable  Latinisms?" 

255  Whose  Sonnets?  By  Appleton  Morgan.  In 
the  Manhattan,  New  York,  May,   1884.     8  pages. 

Aiiti-Sh. 

"  Either  these  Sonnets  are  those  mentioned  as  circulating  among 
Shakespeare's  private  friends  prior  to  i  ^98,  or  they  are  not.  If  they 
are,  they  are  as  doubtfully  his  as  is  the  rest  of  the  literary  matter 
given  by  Meres,  so  far  as  we  know.  If  they  are  not,  then  they  have 
no  claim  to  be  called  Shakespeare's  except  from  the  fact  that  his  name 
was  put  on  the  title  pages  of  three  books  of  verses,  among  which  verses 
they  appeared." 


INDEX   TO   TITLES. 


In  this  index  is  included,  not  only  the  writers,  but  others  who  are  mentioned 
as  having  expressed  opinions.  Where  initials  or  assumed  names  are  used,  and  the 
name  of  the  writer  is  not  known,  the  articles  are  indexed  only  to  the  magazine  or 
other  serial  in  which  they  appeared.     References  are  to  Title  numbers,  not  pages. 


Abbott,  Dr.  Edwin  A.,  187. 

Academy,  London,  246. 

Adee,  Alvey   a.,  199,  203,  209, 

215,225. 
Adee,  David  Graham,  148,  149. 
Advance,  Chicago,  49. 
Advertiser,  Boston,  189. 

AiNSLIE,  Th.,  65. 

Allen,  T.  S.,  177. 

Allgemeine  Zeitung,  Stuttgart,  205, 

206. 
Allibone,  S.  Austin,  104. 
American,  Philadelphia,  151. 
American  Register,  Paris,  108. 
Appletons''  Journal,  N.  Y.,  114,  1 16. 
Argus  and  Radical,    Beaver,  Pa., 

54- 
Argus,  Melbourne,  144. 
AthencEum,  London,  5,  8,   14,  16, 

18,  22,  46,  196. 
A.TKINSON,  Henry  G.,  120,  123, 

166,  176,  181,  183,  186. 
Atlatitic  Monthly,  Boston,  27,  217. 
Bacon,  Miss  Delia,  4,  17. 
Beecher,  Henry  Ward,  70. 
Belford,  J.  B.,  245. 
Bell,  John  VV.,  155,  17S,  240. 


BeWs  Weekly  Messenger,  London, 

117. 
Benton,  Myron  B.,  116. 
Bibliographer,  London,  182. 
Bibliopolist  {American),  N.  Y.,  57. 
Blackwood's  Magazine,  Edinburgh, 

II. 
Blade,  Toledo,  O.,  155. 
BoHN,  Henry  G.,  28. 
Boston  Public  Library  Bulletin,  216. 
BoucicAULT,  Dion,  61. 
Bradford,  Rev.  A.  B.,  54. 
Bradv,  James  T.,  62. 
Braley,  a.  B  ,  233. 
British  Quarterly  Revie'tV,  London, 

174. 
Brougham,  John,  62. 

BUCCELLATI,  Prof.    ANTONIO,  94. 
BUCKTON,  T.  J.,  26. 
Bulletin,  Philadelphia,  64. 
Bulloch,  John,  105,  106. 
Burgess,  J.  B.,  65. 
BuRK,  Addison  B.,  68. 
Burton,  William  E.,  62. 
Butler,  Gen.  B.  F.,  95. 
Caldwell,  George  S.,  98. 
Calkins,  E.  A.,  214. 


Canadian  Monthly,  Toronto,   119. 
Carlyle,  Thomas,  73,  131. 
Carson,  Major,  245. 
Carvalho,  S.  N.,  77. 
Catholic  World^  New  York,  loi . 
Cattell,  Charles  C,  103,  112, 

J '3,  123,  130. 
Chambers's  Edinlmrgh  Journal,  2. 
Christian  Observer,  Richmond,  45. 
Cliristian  Register,  Boston,  88. 
Chronicle,  Brookline,   Mass.,  171. 
Chronicle,  Newcastle,  Eng.,  92. 
Chronicle,  San  Francisco,  165,  179. 
Church  Eclectic,  Utica,  N.  Y.,  126, 

232. 
Civil  Service  Review,  90. 
Clarke,  Rev.  J.  Freeman,  132. 
Clipper,  New  York,  51, 
Close,  Richard  Colama,  127. 
CoLQUHOUN,  Sir  Patrick,  117. 
Commercial     Gazette,     Cincinnati, 

229,  234,  240. 
Commonwealth,  Boston,  218. 
Conway,  Moncure  D.,  131,  234. 
Cornell  Review,  Ithaca,  N.  Y.,  87. 
Corson,  Prof.  Hiram,  71,  87. 
Courant,  Hartford,  Conn.,  197. 
Courier,  Lebanon,  Pa.,  70. 
Crais,  Col.,  245. 

Crosby,  Joseph,  81,  126, 129,  231. 
Davey,  R,  63. 
Davis,  C.  K.,  251. 
Davis,  L.  Clarke,  71. 
Dixon,  William  Hepworth,  93. 
Donnelly,  Ignatius,  53. 
Dormer,  Col.,  245. 
Dougherty,  Daniel,  65. 
Eagle,  Brooklyn,  34,  61. 
Engel,  Dr.  Eduard,  236. 
Enquirer,  Cincinnati,  179. 
Evening  Post,  New  York,  44. 
Farrar,  Mrs.  John,  30. 
Ferrier,  William  W.,  133,  142. 
Fillebrown,  Edward,  171,  218. 
FoLLETT,  O.,  118,  138,  220. 


Eraser's  Magazine,  London,  29,  41, 

Freeman's  Journal,   Dublin,    121, 

154- 
FuRNEss,  Horace  Howard,  63. 
Furnivall,  F.  J.,  97. 
Gazette,  Birmingham,  Eng.,  48. 
Gazette,  Cincinnati,  15T. 
Gazette,  Washington,  190. 
Gilmore,  J.  H.,  249. 
Globe  Democrat,  St.  Louis,  153. 
Globe,  London,  117. 
Golden  Age,  c^4. 

Good  Literature,  New  York,  146. 
Hackett,  James  H.,  44,  62. 
Hackett,  Recorder,  67. 
Hall,  A.  Oakey,  62. 
Harper' s  Magazine,  New  York,  43. 
Harrison,  Prof.  James  A.,  254. 
Hart,  Prof.  John  S.,  78. 
Hart,  Joseph  C,  i. 
Harte,  Bret,  61. 
Harvard  University  Bulletin,  135, 
Hawthorne,  Nathaniel,  6,  17, 

22,24,  27- 
Henshaw,  Mrs.  Sarah  E.,  49. 
Herald,  Angola,  Ind.,  133,  142. 
Herald,  New  York,  60,  61,  62,  63, 

65,66,  67,68,70,71,72,73,74, 

75,  76,  77,  78,  79,  So- 
Herald,  Stratford-on-Avon,  144. 
Higgins,  Rev.  Father,  200. 
HiNTON,  Richard  J.,  39,  190. 
Holl,  H.,  136. 
Holmes,  Nathaniel,  t^i,  93,  153, 

167,  200. 
Home  Journal,  New  York,  36. 
Hooper,  Henry,  229,  250. 
Hopper,  A.,  g. 
Hornet,  London,  91 . 
Hudson,  Rev.  Henry  N.,  122. 
Illustrated  London  News,  io>  ^2, 13. 
Ingleby,  Dr,  C.  M.,  12,  59,  81, 

83,  99,  100,  122,  160,  166,  237, 

242. 


—    123 


Inter-Ocean,  Chicago,  151. 
Jewish  Messenger,  New  York,  37. 
Journal  des  Debats,  Paris,  107. 

King,  Thomas  D.,  84. 

Knortz,  Karl,  157. 

Lamon,  Ward  H.,  245. 

Leach,  Rev.  William  T.,  84, 

Leighton,  William,  Jr.,  230. 

Leland,  T.  C,  214. 

L Instruction  Ptibliqtie,  Paris,  109. 

Literary  Gazette,  London,  7,  16,  19. 

Literary  World,  Boston,  115,  125, 
134,  140,  164,  iSS,  204,209,  225, 

237- 
LittelPs  Living  Age,  Boston,  6,  58. 

Mail,  BiriT.ingham,  Eng.,  227. 

Manhattan,  New  York,  255. 

Memoriale  Diplomatique,  Paris,  94. 

Mercury,  Leeds,  Eng.,  221. 

Mercury   {Sunday),    Philadelphia, 

55- 
Methodist,  New  York,  40. 

Modem    Thought,  London,  185. 

Morgan,    Appleton,    114,    147, 

164,    184,   188,  213,  219,    222, 

228,  232,244,248,252,255. 
Morning  Journal,  Cincinnati,  223. 
Nation,  New  York,  33,  211. 
National  Reformer,  London,  183, 

186. 
National  Reviru',  London,  20. 
Nederlandsche  Spectator,The.  Hague 

110. 
News,  Milwaukee,  70; 
Nonconformist    and    Independeyit, 

London,  159,  172. 
North   American   Review,    Boston 

and  New  York,  23,  42,  132. 
Northwestern,  Oshkosh,  Wis.,  177. 
Notes  and  Queries,  London,  3,  g, 

26,  31,  59,  83,  100,  160,  166. 
O'Connor,  William  D.,  24,  241. 
O'Leary,  Prof.,  74. 
Oracle,  London,  162. 
Owens,  John  E.,  65. 


Pall  Mall  Gazette,  London,  224. 
Palmerston,  Lord,  29,  95. 
Philosophic  /«^2«Vi?r, Madras,India, 

176. 
Pierrepont,  Edwards,  65. 
Pioneer  Press,  Si.  Paul,  150,  212, 

213,  222,  239,  244,  252. 
Plumptre,  Rev.  E.  H.,  146. 
Pollock,  David,  78. 
Post,  Boston,  66,  219. 
Post  {Evening),  Hartford,  Conn., 

193- 
Post,  Washington,  161. 

Pott,  Mrs.  Henry,  187,  239,  250. 

Press,  Philadelphia,  61,  64. 

Prichard,  J.  v.,  58,  80. 

Prior,  Sir  James,  25. 

Punch,  London,  201. 

Putnam's  Monthly,  New  York,  5. 

Pyle,  J.  G.,  150,  212. 

Record,  Philadelphia,  197. 

Record-Union,   Sacramento,    Cal., 

Rees,  James,  55. 

Register,  Sandusky,  O.,  151,  220. 

Register,  Wheeling,  W.  Va.,  230, 

231. 
Republic    (Sunday),    Philadelphia, 

56. 
Republic,  Washington,    148,    149, 

199,  203,  215,  228. 
Republican,  Angola,  Ind.,  139,  238. 
Republican,  Springfield,  Mass.,  38. 
Republican,  St.  Louis,  72,  200. 
Richardson,  Dr.  B.  W.,  136. 
Roberts,  R.  P.  Hampton,  100. 
Robinson,  W.  S.,  38. 
Rolfe,  William  J.,  115, 125, 134, 

209,  225,  247. 
Ross,  J.  Wilson,  185. 
Round  Table,  New  York,  35,  39. 
Rye,  Francis,  119, 
Saturday  Reader,  Montreal,  47. 
Saturday  Revirw,  London,  89,  161, 

195- 


124  — 


Scribner's  Monthly,  New  York,  82, 

85,  86. 
Secular  Review^  London,  123,  iSi. 
Sedgwick,  A.  G.,  42. 
Sentinel^  Indianapolis,  70. 
Sentinel,  Milwaukee,  161, 184,  202. 
Shackford,  Rev.  C.  C,  23. 
Shakespeariatta,    New    York,    247, 

248,  250,  254. 
Shoemaker,  W.  L.,  204. 
Skipton,  H.  S.,  59,  83. 
Slocomb,  R.,  9. 
Smith,  George  B.,  177. 
Smith,  James,  144. 
Smith,  Lucy  Toulmin,  81. 
Smith,  William  Henry,  6,  9,  14, 

21,  22,  48. 
Sotitkern    Quarterly    Review,    New 

Orleans,  124, 
Spectator^  London,  146,  207. 
Spedding,  James,  52,  93,  245. 
Spiritualist^  London,  120. 
Standard,  Chicago,  249. 
State  Journal,  Madison,  Wis.,  161, 

170,  178. 
Stearns,  Chas.  W.,  50. 
Steck,  Judge,  245. 
Stedman,  E.  €.,  62. 
Stouder,  O.  C,  128. 
St,  James's  Gazette^  London,  208. 
Stronach,  George,  91. 
Sun,  New  York,  198. 
Taverner,  Prof.  J.  W.,  96. 
Telegraph,  London,  117. 
Telegraph    (^Sunday),    Milwaukee, 

214,  233. 
Telegraphy  Pittsburg,  151. 
Theobald,  R.  M.,  159,  172 
Thomson,  Dr.  William,  102, 121, 

'37,  H5»  156,  158,  194- 


Times,  New  York,  64,  253. 
Times-Star,  Cincinnati,  235. 
TiMMiNs,  Sam.,  227. 
TowNE,  Rev.  Edward  C,  88,  192, 

226. 
TowNSEND,  Geo.  H  ,  15. 
Transcript  {^Evening'),  Boston,  163, 

180,  192,  226. 
Transcript,  Oakland,  Cal.,  69. 
Tribune,    Chicago,  189. 
Tribune^  Denver,  Col.,  198,  2415. 
Tribune,  Minneapolis,  Minn.,  !;3. 
Tribune,  New  York,  152,  210. 
Truth  Seeker,  New  York,  243. 
TUEL,  J.  E.,  70. 

TULLIDGE,  E.  W.,    141,  169,    173. 

Tulltdge^s    Quarterly,    Salt    Lake, 

Utah,  141,  167,  169,  173. 
Vaile,  E.  O.,  85. 
Varagnac,  Berard,  107,  loS. 
Victorian  Revinu,  Melbourne,  127. 

ViLLEMAIN,  M.  J.,   109. 

Wallack,  Lester,  61. 
Ward,  C.  A.,  59,  83. 
Ward,  Judge,  245. 
Warwick,  J.  H.,  139. 
Weiss,  John,  hi. 
Westminster  Review,  London,  168. 
Wheeler,  A.  C,  61. 
Whitaker,  Daniel  K.,  124. 
White,    Richard    Grant,     61, 

217. 
Wilkes,  George,  58,  95. 
Windle,  Mrs.    C.    F.  Ash  MEAD, 

143,  165. 
Wittenberger  Magazine,  Springfield, 

O.,  128,  129. 
WooDHULL,  Joseph  A.,  238. 
World,  New  York,  191. 
Wyman,  W.  H.,  170,  175,  214. 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  50  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.00  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


^JCr^2~S46 


^ 


^ 


V-Z?!^ 


1953 


j;fMY^^5TVr 


rt ,  t-:cv 


f/iSR     n  \^^o^^>o- 


EECO  LD 


-wftM^^eaiSPffl 


"Rec,  ciR 


m?    1976 


RECCIR.     DtCl8 


15 


LD  21-100m-12,'43  (8796s) 


u  c 


BFRKnrYunnAR'ps 


005510763^ 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CAWFORNIA  LIBRARY 


I 


-  -    .   3. 

I! 

J 

J 
f 

} 

I- 
l 

1 

. 

: 


